When does 'overcrowded' become a safeguarding issue?

I know of a family of 7 in a 2 bed flat they have had to make thier kitchen/living room area into a bedroom to accommodate. Won't be moved due to overcrowding so if it's not Dv related it's no priority

Numbers of people and bedrooms isnt the issue.

The issue often in the floor space per person and also the effects overcrowding can have - it can increase mould.

I support everyone's right to do what they want and to have children, I also am very pro social housing (I live in a HA) flat.

But I don't think it's someone else's responsibility to be taken with regards safeguarding if a family decide to keep having children and expect a larger property.

We don't take enough responsibility for our own choices in this country. Or rather some don't.

So you're asking as a professional in a healthcare field should you come across this scenario? It sound a awfully specific for a hypothetical scenario.

However the answer is it is not a safeguarding on its own, unless the children were being neglected/ not fed/ sleeping on floors without any form of bedding - as the involved HCP you or your colleagues may take a view on that from evidence you've seen.

It is however a Child in Need report that the HCP would make to LA children services and housing for overcrowding , CSD may be able to support the family to be rehoused (or at least go on a housing list with higher prioroty points)

As a Child in Need report, the parents can choose not to engage with offers of support from CSD as it is voluntary.

Safeguarding from what? Covid? A family of ten will all infect each other no matter how big their house is.

Having to wait for the bathroom to be free is not neglect.

A two bedroom flat usually has a permitted number of 5 adults that are unrelated and not in a relationship. Children are only counted as half a person from the age of 5 and only then if there is no sibling of the same sex to share with.

Your hypotheticals won't get rehoused.

@Lalastepmum

My family of six children were the happiest children I ever met

That's brilliant, I know there are lots of big families who are very happy, there's no doubt about that.

But, it's useful to be wary of the 'happiest children' sometimes. I spent much of my life on a notorious housing estate in Glasgow, well known as being one of the worst in the uk. My neighbours downstairs were heroin addicts, with four small children. Absolutely gorgeous kids they were, but their lives were riddled with neglect. They came up the stairs to me several times through the day to try to find food, and would search through the neighbours' bins to see if they could find anything to eat.
Hand on heart, I would say that these four kids always appeared 'happy' - they were polite and always smiling.
I remember it clearly, because my 3 kids wanted for nothing, but were total miserable buggers in comparison

Surely it depends entirely on the context of the situation as to whether it would be safeguarding?

Scenario 1: a two bedroom house where both bedrooms are large rooms, a decent sized family bathroom, multiple reception rooms, fully stocked kitchen, utility room, a downstairs loo and large garden. All of which are kept clean, tidy and in good order.

This would not be a safeguarding issue as the bedrooms would accommodate the children (2×2 bunkbeds); the parents could turn a reception room into a bedroom and still have a living room, or could sleep in the living room on a sofa bed and have the living room and dining room space for the kids to play/do homework through the day; there is space for adequate washing facilities (both bodies and clothes) and there is outside space for the children/animals to play.

Scenario 2: a two bedroom flat on the 13th floor of a tower block; no outside space that is easily accessible; the bedrooms are a "master bedroom" and a box room where nobody has their own bed as there literally isn't room so everyone just sleeps wherever there is space; one living room qhere there is barely room for everyone to sit down at the same time, never mind have space for desks/table suitable for homework; tiny kitchen; single small bathroom. All of which are unkempt, messy and not kept in any semblence of order meaning that the children are rarely clean, have clean clothes and are always hungry as the kitchen is empty.

This would constitute a safeguarding concern wrt neglect but it would not be entirely down to the housing - that would be considered as part of the wider context as inadequate housing would be a mitigating cause but not the only reason for it to be a case of neglect.

How strange if you to post something like this. It's not neglect if you are poor and have a small house!

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01013/SN01013.pdf

This is the official policy on overcrowding!

Neglect.

If there isn't enough room for beds or to even sit on a sofa, or to use the bathroom when they need and more

When you say 'not enough room for beds', what exactly do you mean? That the children are sleeping on hard floors? If so that would be neglect but if there's enough room for a mattress, there's enough room for a bed, surely?

The sofa thing is silly, because many houses have tiny living rooms, so you just sit on a cushion/bean bag on the floor.

The queue for the bathroom is just part of life in most homes

I think you could make it work if you had to, and I really don’t think “neglect” is the word you’re looking for.

My Granny raised 14 children in a small 3 bedroomed farmhouse. They were poor but not neglected.

When I worked in overcrowding @DontBiteTheBoobThatFeedsYou there were two measures.

Statutory overcrowding would say 2 units per double room Inc living room all 6 units. Kids under 1 don't count. Kids under 10 are 0.5 & everyone else is 1.
So 2 adults and 8 teens would be 10 units so overcrowded in that house. 2 adults and 8 under 10s would be 6 units so fine

Then there was the bedroom standard so one could per room, one pair is kids per double, kids of opposite seed dying share past 10 etc in which case even if all were in primary school you would need 5 bedrooms, they have 2 so would be severely over crowded.

There's an argument for neglect in neglecting to provide an adequate save home but would depend why they went there.

136000 children in UK living in bnb accommodation which is often just a room per family. Social services do sometimes use housing as a contributory factor in child protection cases, but it can never be the only factor because ultimately it is a side effect of poverty. You cannot take children away for being in shit housing or their families not having enough money. If there parents also abuse or neglect them then of course that's different. But living in cramped conditions and eating from food banks is not neglect. It's poverty, probably destitution, but not abuse or neglect.

It’s subjective though.
We used to live in a 2 bed flat, it was bloody massive though!!!
We had 2 big bedrooms - you could have got 4 singles beds in each with room to spare, it had a bath room and 2 seperate toilets with sinks in. The lounge was in the roof and ran the whole length of the building and was huge - you could have got 8 beds up there with room to spare!! It wouldn’t be ideal but there would have been more than enough room for everyone to have somewhere to sleep and possible to screen off areas for privacy.
We had more room than most 4 bed modern boxes that are built now!

[quote Nachostress]@Lalastepmum most LA housing lists have similar formulas, but that is simply what housing consider as a factor when prioritising people for rehousing, just as they'd consider things like age, income, health needs and local connection. It doesn't mean housing view it as a safeguarding concern.[/quote]
Sorry my point was it isn’t really safeguarding and was explaining the way it works.

My family of six children were the happiest children I ever met.

@Lalastepmum most LA housing lists have similar formulas, but that is simply what housing consider as a factor when prioritising people for rehousing, just as they'd consider things like age, income, health needs and local connection. It doesn't mean housing view it as a safeguarding concern.

All I can think of is the pontipines!

My neighbours were rehoused when they had a third child in a 2-bed; parents and a grandparent also living in the property. So presume someone was sleeping in the living room permanently, as well as all the children in one small room.

What @NellieBertram said is most relevant though. Safeguarding is a different matter.

I worked with a family with six children and two adults in a two bed flat and another in a one bed flat with two adults three children. They were socially over crowded not statutory overcrowded.
My council did have a formula
So a baby counted under one was a zero then each age range when from quarter to half then three quarters till they reached a full adult.

My council Northampton state you need to have your living room as a sleeping area too.

I live in a 3 bed ground floor maisonette above me there is a one bed flat every single occupants that have lived there have been families despite it only being a one bed flat, there was previously a family of 5 living above me they lived there for 3 years (mum dad teenager daughter and 2 primary school boy and girl) I often wondered about how cramped it must be but it was private rented so I assumed they knew the person renting to them as most places wouldn’t allow 5 people in a one bed flat.