Ombudsman issues withering criticism of Croydon’s failing council: ‘Sadly this is not an isolated case in the borough’
Mayor Jason Perry’s council has been chastised again by the Ombudsman over its mistreatment of one of the borough’s most vulnerable residents – with the ninth homelessness case in two years being upheld against Croydon.
This latest ruling against Croydon has been referred to the local government minister, Jim McMahon, just as he is considering whether or not to send in Commissioners to take over the running of the authority that has been under some form of “special measures” since 2020.
This is another adverse report about the council’s maladministration under chief executive Katherine Kerswell that you will never read about on Croydon’s own website or in the Mayor’s propaganda freesheet Dour Croydon.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found that a man with mental health difficulties was left to sleep on the streets, “because council did not do enough to help”.
Inside Croydon has reported before about the overtly hostile approach that the council has adopted to the homeless and street sleepers since Jason Perry became Mayor of Croydon in 2022, including a series of forcible clearances of shelters and town centre subways, persection of a homeless charity that operates out of Queen’s Gardens, and the eviction of squatters from otherwise abandoned and disused council buildings.
Now the Local Government Ombudsman has had cause to reprimand Croydon over its approach.
The Ombudsman has not identified the victim of this latest Croydon Council clusterfuck.
The man first approached the council for help in July 2023 after he had become homeless. The Ombudsman’s investigation found the council lost the man’s records. His mental health worsened and he lost touch with his family.
Months later, the man contacted his family and with their help made a new homelessness application to the council.
In late October, one of the man’s sisters found him sleeping outside her house in the rain. She said her brother could stay with her, but this could not be long-term as she was seriously unwell and his mental health needs meant living with him was challenging.
The Ombudsman’s statement continues: “The council closed the man’s case in November without telling the sister who was helping him talk to the council, after it claimed it unsuccessfully tried to reach the man. However, the sister told the Ombudsman she waited by her phone and called the council three times on the day an interview had been arranged.”
The council eventually placed the man in interim accommodation in March 2024.
“The council decided it owed him the main housing duty in September,” the Ombudsman reports.
“Later that month, the council sent the man his Personalised Housing Plan which included actions for him to take including to provide his partner’s passport and proof of income. It stated the ‘applicant [was] to view accommodation sent to her’ and that he was to ‘inform the council after the child has been born’.
“The man was the sole applicant and was not pregnant,” the Ombudsman says, apparently trying not to laugh at Croydon Council.
“And the Plan was sent at a time the man had already been provided with temporary accommodation.”
The Ombudsman said: “This was further evidence of the council’s failure to grasp the case.”
Amerdeep Somal, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “This is a clear case of the dire things that can happen when councils are not on top of their homelessness services and allow vulnerable people to fall through the cracks.
“The siblings have told me this has caused substantial damage to their relationships. The man had a mental health crisis during the time he was missing and has since been withdrawn and isolated, and the sisters are still working to rebuild his trust.
“Sadly this is not an isolated case in the borough.
“In the past two years we have investigated eight other homelessness cases and upheld every one.”
Get a grasp: Amerdeep Somal, the Local Government Ombudsman, is deeply unimpressed with Croydon Council
Somal said that she urges the council “to take a firm grasp of its homelessness service to ensure other vulnerable residents are not treated in the same way as this man”.
Somal’s office says that it “shares learning from investigations to help improve public… services”. There’s not been any evidence of Croydon doing much “learning” under its chief exec, Kerswell.
Instead, they have paid off the victim of their maladministration with £8,400 of Council Tax-payers’ money, the bulk of which is to refund the man for the cost of bed and breakfast accommodation he paid for between May and October 2023.
The man’s sisters, who navigated their way through Croydon’s tortuous homelessness system and filed the complaint to the Ombudsman, are to receive £700 from the council “for their distress”.
“The council will review the man’s case to consider what action it needs to take to ensure it identifies and responds to communications from homeless people and their representatives without delay,” the Ombudsman said.
“It will also remind staff about its duties around closing cases, and reconsider what it should do to ensure it issues completed, accurate Personalised Housing Plans to applicants in a timely way.”
Read more: Council accused of cover-up over multi-million agency spend
Read more: McMahon acts after serious concerns on ‘aspects of leadership’
Read more: Welcome to the House of Fun! Squatters claim court victory
Read more: Activists provide shelter to 40 people ignored by council
Read more: Council chief made mates’ rates payments at £726 per hour
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
PAID ADS: To advertise your services or products to our 10,000 weekday visitors to the site, as featured on Google News Showcase, email us inside.croydon@btinternet.com for our unbeatable ad rates
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
As featured on Google News Showcase
- Our comments section on every report provides all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content. Our comments policy can be read by clicking here
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
The Commissioners are coming!
The compensation of £700 is less than Shoesmith’s daily rate, perhaps I could suggest it comes from that pot??
£726 per hour was the rate paid to Shoesmith’s assistant, Eve.
This degradation of public services into some form of comedy routine will be used by Perry in his upcoming campaign to drum up support to remain Mayor among his South Croydon support base.
His hostility and high rate of persecutive activity against the homeless have been the most notable feature of his otherwise enfeebled period as Mayor.
I’m a community engagement lead in one of the local organisations. Many of the complaints from most of the members of our communities show they are becoming endangered species in due to the anti people policies of the Croydon council. The council is so cruel using its enforcement crew to threaten, exploit the community and this can add more to the homelessness records.
It’s regretting living in this neighborhood. The council management really needs help and I think they can get the problem sorted out through the community engagement and participatory approaches if they really meant social services
The bloody useless LGO, ie it has got MUCH worse (Amerdeep not to blame).
Absolutely perfect use of the word clusterfuck in the piece. Conservative nor labour can get to grips with what will be an ever challenging budget. Not so much time for another party to have a go but for the general responsibility and waste/wages/staff.
You mean, Inquisitors? Nobody expects them!
Last year I was assisting a vulnerable neighbour who was made homeless due to his eviction. The walk in service at the mint house was in shambles. The hostility displayed by the front line staff of Croydon council was unbelievable.
My neighbour was herded into a small pen and made to sit there for 6 hours after processing his “file”. The housing staff were rude and autocratic. It took them nearly 7 hours to issue the address of the temporary accommodation abode. Upon reaching the new studio, the landlord confirmed that they had received the ‘reservation’ at just after 1pm and yet my neighbour was not aware of this earlier. The accommodation was unsuitable and this was raised with the council staff. The housing officer had threatened to withdraw their accommodation offer since she felt that by finding a dig, the council had “discharged their statutory duties”. Is dumping a vulnerable at the first available unsuitable property part of their “statutory” duty? A complaint was finally lodged with great difficulty and only the threat to going to the papers and the local MP had made them act and rehouse my neighbour. In the process this had consumed 10 times more of their time. If the council staff had actually noted the safeguarding concerns in the first place, my neighbour would not have been subjected to this traumatic experience. Who will be accountable?
I have now learnt that they have closed this walk-in service. How on earth would a vulnerable access the urgent help needed?