There is perhaps no area of complex enforcement that requires greater care than vulnerability.
An enforcement action can have a profound impact on an individual who is elderly, disabled, physically or mentally unwell, pregnant, dependent on substances, unable to communicate effectively in English or otherwise vulnerable.
There may also be circumstances where enforcement could trigger a mental health crisis, self-harm, suicidal ideation or barricading behaviour.
These circumstances require more than operational planning.
They require safeguarding awareness and appropriate coordination.
Identifying Vulnerability Early
The first challenge is identifying vulnerability before attendance where reasonably possible.
Information may indicate:
- Physical health concerns
- Mental health concerns
- Disability
- Age-related vulnerability
- Pregnancy
- Substance dependency
- Communication difficulties
- Social isolation or
- Other safeguarding concerns
The purpose is not to make assumptions about people.
It is to ensure that relevant circumstances are recognised.
Crisis Risk
Some cases present a specific risk that enforcement could precipitate a crisis.
Where credible information indicates potential self-harm, suicidal ideation, barricading or another emergency situation, the operational plan may require additional consideration and appropriate liaison.
The objective is not to replace professional health or emergency services.
It is to recognise when specialist involvement may be necessary.
Reasonable Adjustments
Complexity can also arise where reasonable adjustments are required.
Communication, access, timing, support arrangements and other operational considerations may need to be reviewed depending on the circumstances.
This is another example of why CRA is not simply a security process.
It is a whole-case risk-management process.
The Principle of Proportionate Safeguarding
The presence of vulnerability does not automatically determine the outcome of enforcement.
Instead, it should trigger appropriate assessment and consideration of mitigation.
The question becomes:
What can reasonably be done to manage the identified risk while maintaining the lawful purpose of the enforcement action?
That is the essence of accountable decision-making.
The next article considers cases where the problem is not simply who occupies a property, but the fact that the occupation itself may be unlawful or disputed.
