Recurring concern

Failure to reliably scrutinise and approve accommodation providers before placement

First to latest report 31 Dec 2019 — 19 Jan 2023

Reports that mention this concern
2
Times this concern has been raised
2
Stated actions linked to this concern
0

What this concern includes

Includes failures of the dedicated pre-placement scrutiny and approval process for accommodation providers, including due diligence, checking provider competence and training, verifying policies and procedures, reviewing placement forms and referrals, new-provider approval, and documenting or auditing the basis for approval.

What is not included
  • Excludes failures in the suitability of an individual placement after provider approval where the provider-scrutiny and approval process itself is not deficient.
  • Excludes general commissioned-care quality assurance or post-placement monitoring where no pre-placement provider scrutiny or approval failure is identified.
  • Excludes generic staffing, training, documentation or governance deficiencies unless they directly impair scrutiny or approval of the accommodation provider before use.
  • Excludes failures concerning healthcare, social-care or probation providers where accommodation-provider approval is not the shared safety control.
  • Excludes neutral descriptions of provider registration or regulation without an identified failure to verify provider competence or safety before placement.

Reports and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. West London

    AI-generated summary

    Lance Scott Walker · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Lance Scott Walker, an 18-year-old looked-after child, was placed in unregulated accommodation in 2016, where another 18-year-old resident was later placed. Eleven days after they were placed together, the other resident fatally stabbed Lance in the afternoon of 15 August 2016. Concerns included the use and oversight of unregulated accommodation, inadequate assessment and communication of the other resident’s risks and needs, shortcomings in placement and provider due diligence, and failures in information-sharing and management.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient scrutiny and approval of new accommodation providers

    Wider context from the report

    “3 Response from London Borough of Ealing The Court was advised that the inquest had raised several points that will be further considered but that have not yet been addressed following this tragic death. In particular, system review of the “due diligence” in matching of individuals in the accommodation needs to be carried out and further lessons can be learnt in relation to the Borough’s obligations in this regard. Strengthening the contractual elements between the Borough and Providers would ensure additional oversight of these relationships. Additional work in double checking and auditing placement forms needs further review to learn from the issues encountered in this case, and to improve the consistency and standard of referrals, with consideration on the introduction of mandatory fields for specific information to be included. The Borough undertook to enhance “New provider” scrutiny and approval in the light of the inquest findings. Confirmation of these positive steps and actions should be provided to allay the jury and Court’s concerns arising from this inquiry. ”

    Source location

    Lance Scott Walker · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

  2. Derby and Derbyshire

    AI-generated summary

    Jacob Andrew Bates · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Jacob Andrew Bates, who had autism, mental health problems and a history of serious self-harm, died by suicide on 15 July 2017 after placing plastic ties around his neck as ligatures. The report raised serious concerns that vulnerable young people, including those with complex needs and significant risks, were being placed in unregulated settings without statutory oversight of staff competency, policies or procedures.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate local-authority scrutiny of placement-provider competence and safety

    Wider context from the report

    “Evidence was given at the inquest hearing by two former employees at the placement that they had no prior experience of working with young people (indeed no experience of working in any form of care-related work) and were left in charge of the unit where Jacob was placed after a very short period of commencing employment (one former staff member said that he had only completed two shadowing sessions before being asked to be in sole charge of the unit overnight). The evidence of the responsible local authority was that it had not sought evidence from the placement provider as to staff competency and training, or that suitable policies and procedures were in place; it effectively accepted the assurances of the provider. The local authority stated that it now has systems providing for greater scrutiny and diligence but it was explained that where residential/supported provision is solely for young people aged 16 to 18 that provision falls outside of the statutory regime of inspection and regulatory compliance as enforced by Ofsted. My understanding is that the issue of unregulated placements for 16 to 18 year olds has been widely highlighted as a cause for concern but the evidence of a senior local authority manager at inquest was that she was unaware of any plans nationally to address the issue despite concerns having been very widely raised. 1. Vulnerable young people, aged 16 to 18, are being placed in unregulated placements. 2. Any young person under the age of 18 placed in an unregulated placement is likely to have very significant vulnerabilities, and it is likely that young people with complex needs and at significant risk are being placed in such placements; indeed this was the case for Jacob. 3. As the placements are unregulated there are no statutory regulations to comply with relating to competency and appropriate policies and procedures by the provider and there is no regulatory body to check and assess those providers. This is clearly a very concerning situation given the very high level needs that some of the young people will have. 4. The lack of statutory regulation then places an onus on local authorities to check that a provider is competent and safe. Whilst in making individual placements it must be the duty of a local authority to satisfy itself as best as it is able that placements are ‘safe’, given the pressures on local authorities it cannot be the case that they are in a position to mirror the type and nature of inspection and oversight that might be provided by a regulator such as Ofsted. 5. In view of the points made above the lack of statutory regulation is placing vulnerable young people at risk, and there is a realistic possibility that deaths may occur. ”

    Source location

    Jacob Andrew Bates · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026