Here is our third story of the month.  It addresses another myth we often hear – that “safeguarding is different, surely!”  Again, we remind people that the Three Conversations is an approach, not a form, process or pathway.  A key commitment is to really listen to what matters to people and respond quickly without passing people round the system when they need help to be safe – sticking with them until we’ve helped get their lives back on track.   

One example was Sue and Pete.  Sue was the main carer for her husband Pete, who had had been diagnosed with a terminal illness and wasn’t expected to live beyond the next 4 months.  When the worker went to meet the couple, Sue told her that they had been given notice by the housing association of their intention to begin the eviction process.  Sue was in tears and hadn’t told her husband about this.

What did the worker do? The worker listened to Sue, and learned that the couple self-isolated due to concerns about Pete’s health.  They had given their bank cards to their son to do their weekly shopping, but his gambling addiction led to him empty their bank accounts and run up significant debts.  The worker helped Sue explain the situation to Pete and prioritise what needed to be done.  First, they cancelled the bank cards and opened a new account, which the son didn’t have access to.  She then contacted the Housing Association, who agreed to delay the eviction if they received £800 on account.  Sue said that a nephew would lend them the money for this.  The worker identified that the total money owing to all debtors was £29,000.  One of Pete’s priorities was not losing contact with his son during his remaining time, and the worker helped all parties agree safe ground rules for spending time together.

What might have happened?  That council’s former approach would have labelled the situation as “Safeguarding” for ‘financial abuse’ and the focus would have been on investigating the circumstances of the act, rather than dealing with its consequences.  The worker felt that the most likely outcome would have been that they were asked to complete a section 42 form and, by the time they did this, the couple would be facing eviction so her next steps would probably have been to look for a residential placement for both.  The worker didn’t even want to think how Pete would have felt in those circumstances.

What did happen?  Using the CHC paperwork the worker got the majority of unsecured debt written off and the couple were able to stay in their own home during Pete’s remaining illness.  A manageable repayment plan was agreed for the rent, and followed until the debt was cleared.  The son got help with his addiction issues and was able to be in contact with his parents while Pete was still alive.  

In Partners for Change we have seen over and over again that the right conversation at the right time, where we really listen and then take action, is the very best way of keeping people safe.