It took the police 10 hours to find Marie Rose, buried under clothes amid the dishes, boxes and debris which crammed every room in her flat, from floor to ceiling. The 62-year-old had suffocated under piles of clothes while looking for the telephone.
Her case made the Network news in her home town of Seattle in the USA. Though extreme, it is not as unusual as the TV reporters may have imagined. Take the case of John James Jones from Aberystwyth, in Wales, whose body was unearthed, buried under a pile of waste at his flat. Police claimed 4.2 tons of ‘material’ was later removed from his bedroom and landing alone.
Even if they don’t plumb these depraved depths, vile, stinking and rubbish stacked houses are not unheard of in my local authority. Since we rarely carry out home visits, it is usually our maintenance contractors who stumble into the mire and refuse to work there.
Fighting filth
Housing officers get upset about filth. Especially when tenants don’t seem to understand that dirt is a problem. They are ‘our’ houses, we tell them, and they need to shape up.
We all have theories, but no one claims to know for sure why some tenants behave like this. In the end, most of my colleagues put it down to laziness, ignorance or lack of discipline.
Holding back my nausea while heaving 100 bin bags full of filth from a flat recently, it occurred to me that blaming the tenants isn’t always the right approach.
Worse rubbish remains in this flat; the tenant appears indifferent and we are threatening eviction. Yet, if you met ‘Mrs B’ on the street or in the shops, you would have no inkling of the stomach churning smell in her home, the dirt encrusted bathroom or the blackened worktops where the dishes sport ancient cobwebs.
She is well turned out and doesn’t carry the house odour. Her manner is polite and entirely normal. Yet, while she knows we think her house is unacceptably dirty, she either can’t or won’t do anything about it.
So, what is going on in Mrs B’s head? Should the housing department be helping her to sort herself out - or punishing her. Please don’t misunderstand. We are not a stick waving, tenant bashing council. We have tenancy support officers. In this case, they have been working with Mrs B for months - but while verbal co-operation is always forthcoming, she does not act on her words.
Root of the problem
Mrs B has already crossed that hazy line, where housing management moves from support into eviction mode. But is there another way? Wouldn’t it be better to tackle the symptoms rather the causes? And if so, what are the roots of the problem for people like her?
A psychologist friend has pointed me towards some research carried out in the US, into compulsive hoarding. Buried Treasures, written by David. F. Tolin, Randy O. Frost and Gail Steketee seeks to get inside the heads of compulsive clutterers - literally.
By taking brain scans of hoarders, while they made decisions about whether to keep or dump household items, the researchers found increased activity in the area of the brain where decisions are made. Non-hoarders didn’t show the same level of activity, suggesting to Dr Tolin and his colleagues that the rubbish collectors were thoroughly stressed by having to reach a decision to throw anything away.
The research only describes the phenomenon, of course. It doesn’t explain why certain individuals are more prone to hoarding. Let alone why they seem oblivious to dirty, smelly and downright dangerous surroundings.
But there are theories about this, too. It seems the clutter may be mental as well as physical and, according to my psychologist friend, the patient must choose to get better. Just as the clinically obese must commit to losing weight.
Psychologists see lack of interest in cleanliness as one symptom of many other illnesses. These include depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder,
But we are housing officers, not shrinks. Our tenancy support workers don’t diagnose the tenants; they try to help them stop their dysfunctional behaviour. Quite often they fail and eviction is the consequence. The ‘dirty’ tenant moves on and becomes somebody else’s problem.
A better solution?
I am not advocating that we add another set of tasks to our workload. We have enough already. But perhaps there should be wider options for referring those who live in filthy homes for help?
‘They don’t know any better, if they have been brought up like that,’ is a common refrain. I am not sure I agree. People from dirty homes don’t necessarily live that way, when they get a place of their own. And people who grow up in clean homes can fall into bad habits.
Not all of these people have medical problems - some really are bone idle. But for the mentally ill, we need better liaison with the medical and social services. As things stand, we can’t refer Mrs B to anyone, because she hasn’t asked for help. There are no children to consider, so the social services department is not interested - chronic disorganisation is not a medical diagnosis.
Consider though, the time - and money - wasted in dealing with these cases. Imagine too, how few of them actually come to light; the tip of a stinking, black iceberg. There is plenty of good practice guidance, listing legal remedies for landlords wanting to rid themselves of these problematic people. But there is next to nothing in the manuals about helping them to overcome their mysterious habits.
Inside Housing’s anonymous columnist is a senior housing officer
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (54)
kass | 20/08/2010 3:15 pm
"But there is next to nothing in the manuals about helping them to overcome their mysterious habits."
There is no mystery about hoarders. These is how some people who happen to be social housing residents deal with their demons. Some end up becoming druggies, some alcoholics, some become hoarders.
None of these category should be evicted, only because their mental defences have collapsed and fallen prey to a habit. Social housing is for needy people, all of these are vulnerable people and (unless they are a danger to others) should not be punished but helped. Their need classifies them for social housing, so eviction should never be on the cards, as you would be evicting the very people you are meant to house as a priority.
If they are really creating a problem in their present accomodation then they should be offered a move elsewhere or be referred to agencies who can provide help for them.
However, as the article p[oints out, SRLs and HAs have being evicting these needy residents pouncing on them as soft targets instead of helping them.
Most of these needy people are single people, like in the case illustrated, and if they have caused their properties to be plagued like the article describes surely it is blindingly obvious they are the least suited to organise any defence against their evictions.
In my opinion landlords have been criminals in evicting those who are most vulnerable and need more help, so they can boast they are being tough and say WE WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS OR THAT.
In case they represent a danger, these people should be referred to appropiate agancies to give them practical help or given them a choice to move somewhere else if necessary.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 20/08/2010 3:27 pm
Of course there are no eccentrics, addicts, or persons with mental health disorders in any other form of tenureship. The only difference is that if they are landed gentry to a private tenant then they are their own problem, but if they are a social tenant then they must be sent for correction to agencies, and held up in the local press for ridicule.
Why not treat tenants as anyone else under the law - if they are causing no harm to others then leave them be - if they are presenting harm to themselves then consult the mental health act and act accordingly.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20/08/2010 6:09 pm
The problem with "referring to appropriate agencies" is that they are few and far between. It costs around £60,000 for a local authority, for example, to clean up the house of a hoarder only for it to start all over again. There is one agency we've come across which can help: Cloud's End CIC. You can find out more about them and the nature of hoarding as a condition at: www.supportsolutions.co.uk/hoarding.html
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 20/08/2010 11:23 pm
"Anonymous | 20/08/2010 6:09 pm
The problem with "referring to appropriate agencies" is that they are few and far between. It costs around £60,000 for a local authority, for example, to clean up the house of a hoarder only for it to start all over again. "
Well, can't then the local authority and the health service and charities etc work together and organise preventive measures, like they do for alcoholics, gamblers, drug addicts, suicide risks and so on?
the crucial point is that it is up to the local authority to find the best effectoive ways and be creative about coming up with iniatives to help these people. Economics cannot validate evictions of social residents who are already victims and have lost control over their lives.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 21/08/2010 8:39 am
Given the recent high profile ASB cases like the Pilkington affair, one would thought the prioritisation for interventions like eviction would be on those creating havoc in their communities ie families of scum, breeding for benefits, who terrorise their neighbours. Rather than going after hoarders because they're flats are not spotless. Or is it that hoarders make for soft targets because they don't fight back and won't punch you square in the face, housing officer, when you go round to speak to them? Get your priorities right, housing officer. Yes it's difficult and dangerous work evicting violent scum. Yes it's easier to go after people who don't fight back. But that's what we pay you for. Consider this fact when you are next employing. Shall I pick the mousy lefty woman who looks and thinks like a LibDem, or shall I pick the six footer who is built like a brick built s**thouse and looks like he can defend himself at the appropriate time? It's your choice...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 21/08/2010 12:13 pm
You were becoming relatively nice to your fellow humans before your break ILAG, perhaps you shouldn't go away anymore. Stay tired, it suits you better.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 21/08/2010 4:34 pm
Your views as a card carrying lefty handwringer are of no interest to me CW, and of no interest to the wider electorate it would seem. Given the fact that your lot have now been booted out of office. It's time for lefty dogma to be put back into the box as it has quite clearly failed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 22/08/2010 1:17 pm
That's the type of 'nice-party' member we all enjoy - so open minded and unblinkered in view. Apologies for existing my captain, I'll return the trenches immidiately to do your bidding sir.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 23/08/2010 8:40 am
The problem with leaving hoarders alone is the damage it ultimately causes the property and the cost to the associations involved when they move out/pass on. I dealt with one case where the floorboards in nearly every room were rotted due to the damp from objects hoarded when not dry, the toilet pan had even fell through the floor in the bathroom, faeces and urine were deposited in receptacles all over the property as the toilet was unusable, so posing a significant risk to themselves. This is without going into the massive fire risk these properties pose for their neighbours. IN the event of the goods not being damp, you effectively have a massive tinderbox next door to someone. So you potentially have a property that will cost in the tens of thousands when void, and the resident posing a risk to potentially themselves and neighbours. It always a difficult judgement call, and is often complicated as many mental health professionals declare hoarders to have mental capacity and the ability to recognise that their actions are not acceptable, and as such there can be pressure to take tenancy enforcement action as you would for any "normal" tenant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 23/08/2010 11:14 am
Harry Lime | 23/08/2010 8:40 am
did you offere the case you dealt with an alternative accomodation on a ground floor somewhere or in some kind of property where any danger would be limited?
Surely if it can cost £60,000 and upwards to deal with one such case would be much cheaper to do so whether the tenant is mentally ill or not.
Also I am not sure what this tenant put up in his/her defence in court? Very likely s/he was in a mental state could even say a word in defense or could not even attend court.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment