Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2024
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2024-0356, written 3 Jul 2024. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 3 Jul 2024 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2024-0356 |
| Deceased | Lee McHale |
| Coroner | Alison Mutch |
| Coroner area | Manchester South |
| Category | Suicide (from 2015) · Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.
REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 1) Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Local Government.) 1 CORONER I am Alison Mutch, Senior Coroner, for the coroner area of South Manchester 2 CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS I make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 3 INVESTIGATION and INQUEST On 28th November 2023 I commenced an investigation into the death of Lee Francis MCHALE. The investigation concluded on the 17th June 2024 and the conclusion was one of suicide. The medical cause of death was 1a) Multi Organ Failure 1b Paracetamol Overdose 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH On 23rd November 2023 Lee Francis McHale was admitted to hospital. He had taken paracetamol tablets the day before. He was treated but continued to deteriorate. On 25th November 2023 he died at Tameside General Hospital. The inquest heard that he had incurred debts prior to his death as a consequence of the gap between his housing benefit entitlement and actual rent. This arose due to the “bedroom tax”. He had a larger property from when he had fostered children. However he had had to give up fostering and was as a consequence reliant on benefits. He was at risk of eviction at the time of his death. CORONER’S CONCERNS During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. 1 The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows. – The inquest was told that once Mr McHale was no longer able to foster he began to claim benefits including housing benefit. However the property he resided in was larger than a single occupancy property because he had previously fostered children. As a consequence he was subject to the so called “bedroom tax”. This meant that there was a gap between housing benefit and his actual rent. Therefore he rapidly went into arrears with his rent and liable to be evicted. He did not feel able to deal with the situation. He was worried about moving from his home in part because he had allowed one of his now adult foster children to continue living with him. He had allowed that because he was concerned that person would otherwise become homeless. Ultimately he took a catastrophic paracetamol overdose. 6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you have the power to take such action. 7 YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 28th August 2024.I, the coroner, may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 8 COPIES and PUBLICATION I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons namely on behalf of the family, who may find it useful or of interest. I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response. The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest. You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. 2 9 Alison Mutch HM Senior Coroner 03.07.2024 3
1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.
Official-Sensitive Ms Alison Mutch OBE HM Senior Coroner for Greater Manchester South H.M. Coroner’s Office, 1 Mount Tabor, Stockport, SK1 3AG. Caxton House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NA 09 September 2024 Dear Ms Mutch, RESPONSE TO REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS We write on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) in response to your Prevention of Future Deaths Report made under Regulation 28 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. We would like to take this opportunity to express our condolences, both personally and on behalf of DWP, to Mr McHale’s family. Your Prevention of Future Deaths Report in this case was originally sent to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (formerly the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities). It was referred on to DWP as the department with responsibility for the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy policy, sometimes referred to as ‘the bedroom tax’. You raised the following concern in your report: The inquest was told that once Mr McHale was no longer able to foster he began to claim benefits including housing benefit. However the property he resided in was larger than a single occupancy property because he 1 Official-Sensitive had previously fostered children. As a consequence he was subject to the so called “bedroom tax”. This meant that there was a gap between housing benefit and his actual rent. Therefore he rapidly went into arrears with his rent and liable to be evicted. He did not feel able to deal with the situation. He was worried about moving from his home in part because he had allowed one of his now adult foster children to continue living with him. He had allowed that because he was concerned that person would otherwise become homeless. Ultimately, he took a catastrophic paracetamol overdose. DWP would like to point out that it was not an Interested Person to the inquest proceedings. DWP was not aware that an inquest was taking place in relation to Mr McHale’s death and was not asked to provide evidence to assist within the substantive proceedings or on matters relating to the prevention of future deaths. Our response to your concern is as follows: Housing Benefit and the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy Policy The Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (“RSRS”) policy was introduced in April 2013 and applies to claims for housing support, either Housing Benefit (“HB”) or housing support in Universal Credit, where a working-age claimant lives in a social rented sector property that is considered to have more bedrooms than the household needs. The policy was introduced to make better use of social housing stock and to strengthen work incentives. RSRS deductions are based on the claimant's eligible rent. There is a 14 percent reduction for those with one extra bedroom and a 25 percent reduction for those with two or more extra bedrooms. Size criteria take account of the number of people who live in the property, their ages and the composition of the household. These criteria provide a bedroom for; • a couple, • a single person aged 16 or over, • • • a sole or remaining child. two children of the same sex under the age of 16, two children of the same or opposite sexes under the age of 10, and There are circumstances which allow for an additional bedroom, such as to support disabled people and carers, the families of disabled children, foster carers, parents who adopt, parents of service personnel and people who have suffered a bereavement. The size criteria are set out in the Housing Benefit Regulations 20061 (as amended by the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 20122). The size criteria apply to claimants living in both social and private rented sectors, for the purposes of calculating the maximum amount payable in respect of housing costs. This is explained at paragraph 7.6 in the explanatory memorandum3. 1 The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (legislation.gov.uk) 2 The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (legislation.gov.uk) 3 The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 - Explanatory Memorandum (legislation.gov.uk) 2 Official-Sensitive Mr McHale’s Housing Benefit Claim Mr McHale was receiving housing support towards his rental costs via HB, which is administered by local authorities on behalf of DWP to assist low-income households to meet their rental costs. As such, we cannot confirm the details of Mr McHale’s claim, however you may find the following helpful. In your report you mentioned that the circumstances relating to Mr McHale’s death were as a result of debts incurred as a consequence of the gap between his HB entitlement and his rent. You have referenced this gap occurred because of the RSRS policy, which is sometimes referred to as the 'bedroom tax’. The report states that Mr McHale was an approved foster carer. Under DWP policy, foster carers can receive one extra bedroom for any number of foster children. This rule applies whether or not a child has been placed with the carer, as long as they have fostered a child or have become an approved carer in the last 52 weeks. The report states that Mr McHale had stopped foster caring and that an adult former foster child remained living with him as Mr McHale was worried that the former foster child might otherwise become homeless. Where an adult lives in a household with a person who is receiving housing support, a non- dependant deduction can apply in certain circumstances. A non-dependant is someone aged 18 and over who normally lives with the person claiming housing support. The general policy for non-dependant deductions is that adults (such as adult children) living in the household of people claiming HB should contribute to the household expenses of the accommodation where they live. A non-dependant is included in the household bedroom calculation for benefit purposes. However, the amount that a non-dependant contributes to the household is a matter for the householder and non-dependant to decide. Additional Support To provide further support to people impacted by these policies, DWP funds the Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) scheme. DHPs can be awarded by a local authority to help people meet their housing costs e.g. to cover a shortfall in rent or costs associated with moving. DHPs are administered by local authorities on behalf of DWP, as they are best placed to make informed judgements about relative priorities and needs in their area to ensure that the most vulnerable are supported and the funds are targeted effectively. DWP provides local authorities with advisory guidance, which includes a list of priority groups intended to assist with their decision making. The guidance (Annex A) encourages local authorities to engage with claimants affected by RSRS to identify effective ways of mitigating the effects of any reduction in entitlement, such as tenants being encouraged to move to smaller properties, to take lodgers or to apply for a DHP. Conclusion Although DWP has overall responsibility for HB and the DHPs scheme and its funding, it is local authorities that administer these benefits. Therefore, we cannot comment on what happened specifically in Mr McHale’s case; for that information you would need to contact the local authority directly. However, DWP is satisfied that its RSRS policy is clear and that there is additional housing support available through the DHP scheme. We hope that our response addresses your 3 Official-Sensitive concerns and helps to assure you of DWP’s commitment to supporting our claimants’ housing needs. Yours sincerely, Deputy Director Housing Policy, Poverty, Housing & Disadvantage Chief Medical Advisor 4 Annex 1 – Discretionary Housing Payments Manual for local Authorities Official-Sensitive DWP provides local authorities with advisory guidance, which includes a list of priority groups intended to assist with their decision making. Annex A of the manual4 states: The Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy policy 19. Working Age claimants living in the social rented sector face a reduction to their eligible rent if they under-occupy their property. The level of under-occupation is determined by size criteria rules which calculate how many bedrooms are required for a household. These criteria are also used in the private rented sector. The rates of reduction to the eligible rent for those affected by this policy are: • 14 per cent where there is under-occupation by one bedroom; and • 25 per cent where there is under-occupation by two or more bedrooms 20. The department continues to expect that most claimants affected by this measure will find ways of making up the shortfall themselves, to remain in their existing home. 21. The department would encourage all LAs to continue their work of engaging with affected claimants to identify effective ways of mitigating the effects of any reduction in entitlement. 4 Discretionary Housing Payments guidance manual - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) 5
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Suicide (from 2015), and how often a new one appears.
What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text
Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.
These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.