Recurring concern

Inadequate sprinkler protection in residential accommodation

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 12 May 2014•Latest report 16 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes deficiencies in sprinkler protection for residential accommodation, including failures concerning provision, mandatory requirements, installation or connection, review of coverage, and testing or maintenance where the sprinkler system is specifically intended to protect residents from fire.

Not included

  • Excludes smoke-detector-only deficiencies unless the report also identifies a sprinkler-system deficiency.
  • Excludes generic fire-safety, escape, staffing or training deficiencies that are not specifically tied to sprinkler protection.
  • Excludes sprinkler issues unrelated to residential accommodation.
  • Do not treat the seed assertions as establishing final membership.
Reports
9

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
9

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
8

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government4
Birmingham City Council1
Citizen Housing Group Limited1
Great Places Housing Association1
Home Office1
Johnnie Johnson Housing1
Leeds City Council1
Manchester City Council1
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Trevor John Ridd · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 04 January 2026, Trevor John Ridd’s bedding caught fire while he was unable to leave his bed because of mobility issues. The sprinkler system activated, but its fault and fire signals were treated as one incident and no 999 call was raised by the Alarm Receiving Centre operator; Mr Ridd was later found with burns and died after suffering cardiac arrest. Concerns included the handling and wording of the two signals, operator training and briefing, and the testing and maintenance of the sprinkler system.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of regular testing and maintenance of the sprinkler system

    Wider context from the report

    “3. It is not clear what training or instruction individual operators receive in relation to how they are to deal with situations where two notification signals are received in quick succession. It is also unclear what information alerts (if any) are communicated to individual operators in respect of the property from which the signals are received i.e. was it noted that the signals came from Mr Ridd’s property who was bed-bound and a known smoker with severe COPD where there had been a previous incident where he had singed his blanket from smoking in his bed? 4. The evidence at Inquest suggested that the two signals received were the wrong way around however it was not clear why this was and whether this has since been rectified. 5. There is no evidence of regular testing and maintenance of the sprinkler system. 6. It is not clear what individual operators have been ‘briefed’ on post-incident with regards to situations where two notification signals are received in quick succession from the same property. ”

    Source location

    Trevor John Ridd · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The sprinkler system is subject to annual servicing and maintenance in accordance with the applicable British Standard.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The sprinkler system at Hobbis House is subject to annual servicing and maintenance in accordance with BS 9251:2021, the British Standard Code of Practice for fire sprinkler systems in domestic and residential occupancies.”

    Source location

    Response from Birmingham City County
    Page 5 · response
    Published 14 August 2026

    Open published response

  2. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Paul Keating · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Paul Keating, aged 59, died on 15 April 2023 in a fire at the flat where he lived alone, from the combined effects of carbon monoxide toxicity and pre-existing heart disease. His flat was the only one in the tower block not connected to the sprinkler system because contractors could not enter without his consent, and smoke detectors had been disabled. The report raised concerns about the absence of statutory power for the local authority to enter the flat to install the sprinkler system.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of statutory power to enter private dwellings to install sprinkler systems

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Being a single private dwelling, albeit in a tower block, Mr Keating’s flat was not covered by the provisions of The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The local authority had no statutory power to enter Mr Keating’s flat for the purposes of installing a sprinkler system without his consent. (3) Over a period of six months during which the sprinkler system was installed in the tower block where Mr Keating lived, he did not respond to letters informing him of the planned installation of the sprinkler system and inviting his agreement to contractors entering his flat as part of that work. He additionally refused to open his door to the tenant liaison officer. (Further, it was discovered after his death that Mr Keating had disabled the hard-wired smoke detector and a battery-operated smoke detector within his flat.) (4) The necessary work was done in the common parts of the building to connect Mr Keating’s flat to the sprinkler system, but the work done could not cross the threshold of his flat without his consent. Of the 98 flats in the building, Mr Keating’s was the only flat not connected to the sprinkler system. (5) If the local authority had had the statutory power to enter Mr Keating’s flat for the purposes of installing the sprinkler system, it would have exercised that power and Mr Keating’s flat would have been connected to that system. ”

    Source location

    Paul Keating · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Install sprinkler systems in tower blocks, including coverage for individual flats.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As your report recognises, since 2017 Leeds City Council has adopted a proactive approach to improving fire safety within its tower blocks, following the Grenfell tragedy. This included installing sprinkler systems in those tower blocks. These sprinklers are intended to cover not only the common parts of the buildings, which fall within the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (as amended by the Fire Safety Act 2021), but also individual flats within the blocks, which are outside the scope of the 2005 order.”

    Source location

    Response from Leeds City Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 August 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Legal powers did not permit entry without tenant consent to install sprinklers classified as improvement works and not legally required inside flats.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Because the works to install sprinklers would be deemed to be improvement works rather than repair or emergency works, and because sprinklers are not currently a legal requirement inside individual flats, the Council did not have legal powers to gain entry against Mr Keating’s wishes to carry out those works. This is the main area of concern raised in your report.”

    Source location

    Response from Leeds City Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 August 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Central government must consider granting landlords additional legal powers to undertake safety works without tenant consent.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The granting of additional legal powers to landlords, in order to permit them to carry out safety works without the tenant’s consent, is a matter over which the Council has no control but falls to be considered by central government, and I note that the report was also addressed to the Home Office. I would however like to endorse your concerns as expressed in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Matters of Concern.”

    Source location

    Response from Leeds City Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 August 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing housing, fire-service and tenancy arrangements provide a basis for action to improve domestic fire safety.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Decent Homes Standard sets the minimum standards that social homes are required to meet. To meet it, the standard that all social housing (including local authority-owned stock) must achieve, a dwelling must be free from hazards at the most dangerous ‘category 1’ level that is assessed using the aforementioned HHSRS. In addition, where a dwelling is privately rented or rented from a housing association, local authorities have a duty to enforce if they identify category 1 hazards, and a discretionary power to enforce where less serious category 2 hazards are assessed. The decision whether to enforce in respect of a category 2 hazard should be taken in accordance with the local authority’s enforcement policy. The actions available to the local authority include powers to require remedial works, prohibit the use of part or all of a building or carry out emergency works themselves.”

    Source location

    Response from Home Office
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 August 2023

    Open published response

  3. West Sussex

    AI-generated summary

    Brian George Harfield · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 3 May 2022, a fire started near Brian George Harfield’s recliner chair and he was overcome by smoke. He was found unconscious and, despite medical intervention, was pronounced deceased at the scene. The principal concern was the lack of compulsory sprinklers or other fire-safety measures in extra-care and retirement-type accommodation outside care homes, particularly for people with declining health or mobility.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of compulsory fire safety measures for extra care and retirement-type accommodation

    Wider context from the report

    “The concerns relates to the fact that there is a lack of compulsory provision for sprinklers or other fire safety measures to protect those who live at home (outside of care homes) but are being provided with extra care facilities or those in retirement type provision. Due to there being an ageing population and a lack of care home spaces there is a growing number of people (who would normally be residing in care homes) who are now having to buy care packages to be delivered either in their own homes or other residential type of facilities. The providers of such accomodation are not subject to any fire safety provisions. People who find themselves in this type of facility do suffer declining health and mobility as time goes on. They are at a particular risk should a fire occur. They are more at risk than those in care homes as there is 24/7 staffing and trained individuals who are well versed in premises. In an extra care facility it is highly probable that should a fire start that the occupant would be unable to leave the room of fire origin/ flat of origin through ill health/ poor mobility, and who would be overcome by the toxic products of combustion prior to the Fire and Rescue service being alerted. This is exactly what happened in Mr Harfield’s case. We heard at this Inquest that whilst a sprinkler controlled fire would still produce smoke it would be of a lower level, and there is evidence that on the majority of occasions it does not just restrict the fires growth, but actually extinguishes it. It is understood that there is currently a Government consultation being undertaken on the subject of Sprinklers in Care homes but the scope of this consultation does not cover the specific risk to those in extra care facilities. This is a missed opportunity. The consultation can be found here. Sprinklers in care homes, removal of national classes, and staircases in residential buildings - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ”

    Source location

    Brian George Harfield · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct and commission phased research on sprinklers and other fire-protection measures in specialised housing.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Government recognises that further evidence is required on the benefit of sprinklers and other additional fire protection measures in specialised housing and, to this end, we have a dedicated research workstream in place. I will consider future research findings in light of your concerns and the evidence heard at Mr Harfield’s inquest, so that we can consider what changes are necessary to reduce the risk of similar incidents in the future. We have commissioned future research that will inform us of the benefit of sprinklers over other policy options such as enhancing fire detection and alarms or additional fire compartmentation. This will generate up-to-date evidence to help us review current building regulation policy and inform future changes.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
    Page 1 · response
    Published 22 March 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Consider research findings and determine what changes are necessary to reduce fire risks in specialised housing.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Government recognises that further evidence is required on the benefit of sprinklers and other additional fire protection measures in specialised housing and, to this end, we have a dedicated research workstream in place. I will consider future research findings in light of your concerns and the evidence heard at Mr Harfield’s inquest, so that we can consider what changes are necessary to reduce the risk of similar incidents in the future. We have commissioned future research that will inform us of the benefit of sprinklers over other policy options such as enhancing fire detection and alarms or additional fire compartmentation. This will generate up-to-date evidence to help us review current building regulation policy and inform future changes.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
    Page 1 · response
    Published 22 March 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Amend Approved Document B to reduce the height threshold for sprinkler provisions in blocks of flats, including applicable extra-care buildings.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “My department and the new Building Safety Regulator keep guidance in Approved Document B including sprinkler provisions under close review. In 2020, the Government amended Approved Document B to reduce the height threshold (from 30 metres to 11 metres) for the inclusion of sprinklers in blocks of flats; this included extra care buildings designed as blocks of flats. The Building Safety Regulator now has a dedicated workstream to consider what additional fire safety measures may be necessary in specialised housing for vulnerable people, including in extra care facilities.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 March 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Bring into force landlord requirements for smoke alarms on each storey and carbon monoxide alarms in rooms with fixed combustion appliances, including repair or replacement of faulty alarms.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Residents in both new and existing extra care buildings have the right to expect safe, quality, healthy environments and there should be full consideration of the risks in a building to determine the right protection to keep residents safe. My department has taken steps to improve safety for people in privately and socially rented homes. The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022 are now in force and, as of 1 October 2022, all private and social landlords must ensure: at least one smoke alarm is equipped on each storey of their homes where there is a room used as living accommodation; that a carbon monoxide alarm is equipped in any room used as living accommodation which contains a fixed combustion appliance (excluding gas cookers); and ensure smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are repaired or replaced once informed and found that they are faulty.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 March 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient evidence and definitions prevent extending sprinkler consultation requirements to extra care premises pending further research.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Government recognises that further evidence is required on the benefit of sprinklers and other additional fire protection measures in specialised housing and, to this end, we have a dedicated research workstream in place. I will consider future research findings in light of your concerns and the evidence heard at Mr Harfield’s inquest, so that we can consider what changes are necessary to reduce the risk of similar incidents in the future. We have commissioned future research that will inform us of the benefit of sprinklers over other policy options such as enhancing fire detection and alarms or additional fire compartmentation. This will generate up-to-date evidence to help us review current building regulation policy and inform future changes.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
    Page 1 · response
    Published 22 March 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing buildings are governed by fire risk assessments requiring responsible persons to provide adequate and appropriate fire precautions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Sprinklers in existing buildings Fire safety in existing buildings is covered by separate legislation which includes the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the FSO). The FSO, which is the responsibility of the Home Office, applies to the common parts of multi-occupied residential buildings and requires the responsible person (the person in control of the premises – usually the building owner, landlord or managing agent) to undertake and review regularly a fire risk assessment. The responsible person must then ensure that adequate and appropriate fire precautions that mitigate against the risk to life from fire are in place. It is for the responsible person to determine these measures, based on the fire risk assessment.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 March 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Responsible persons, usually building owners, landlords or managing agents, must determine fire safety measures for existing buildings.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Sprinklers in existing buildings Fire safety in existing buildings is covered by separate legislation which includes the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the FSO). The FSO, which is the responsibility of the Home Office, applies to the common parts of multi-occupied residential buildings and requires the responsible person (the person in control of the premises – usually the building owner, landlord or managing agent) to undertake and review regularly a fire risk assessment. The responsible person must then ensure that adequate and appropriate fire precautions that mitigate against the risk to life from fire are in place. It is for the responsible person to determine these measures, based on the fire risk assessment.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 March 2023

    Open published response

  4. Hertfordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Daphne Holloway and Ivy Spriggs · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Daphne Holloway and Ivy Spriggs died in a fire at Newgrange Residential Care Home on 8 April 2017. The fire spread rapidly because of inadequate roofspace compartmentation, and both residents died from fourth degree burns. Concerns were raised that sprinklers are not mandatory in care homes with residents who have limited or no independent mobility, and that such care homes are not classified as Higher Risk Buildings unless they meet height or storey thresholds.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of mandatory sprinkler system requirements for care homes housing occupants with limited or no independent mobility

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) That sprinkler systems are not a mandatory requirement for care homes whose occupants have either limited or no independent mobility and are therefore at higher risk from fire. ”

    Source location

    Daphne Holloway and Ivy Spriggs · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  5. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    James Golds · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    James Golds was rescued from a flat fire on 28 September 2020 after sustaining significant fire-related injuries and later died in hospital from complications of smoke inhalation. The report raised concerns about limited guidance for managing and escalating fire risks in supported accommodation, the absence of a statutory requirement for sprinklers, and smoke detectors not activating until a cigarette-related fire was well established.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of statutory requirement for sprinkler systems in supported accommodation

    Wider context from the report

    “2. In addition in relation to the design and fire prevention features for such accommodation the inquest heard that there was no statutory requirement for sprinkler systems. Smoke detectors were in the hallway areas of each flat but because of the way in which a cigarette related fire developed the detector would not be triggered until the fire was well established. This made it difficult to escape and increase the risk of the fire spreading further. ”

    Source location

    James Golds · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct a technical review of Approved Document B, including evidence research and review of provisions for new specialised housing and care homes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Regarding sprinklers specifically, in November 2020 the Government brought forward changes to the guidance to the Building Regulations with regards to fire safety (Approved Document B) reducing the height threshold at which sprinkler systems are provided in new blocks of flats from 30 metres to 11 metres and greatly increased the number of future homes provided with sprinkler protection. This was the first step in a full technical review of Approved Document B, which will include research to ensure that any changes to this guidance is based on a robust evidence base. The technical review programme includes a workstream reviewing the current provisions for new specialised housing and care homes such as the one in which Mr Golds resided.”

    Source location

    2021-0284-Response-from-Department-for-Levelling-Up-Housing-Communities_Published.pdf
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 September 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Mandatory sprinklers are not required universally because existing risk-based controls and ongoing reviews tailor fire protection to individual buildings and residents.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Regarding sprinklers specifically, in November 2020 the Government brought forward changes to the guidance to the Building Regulations with regards to fire safety (Approved Document B) reducing the height threshold at which sprinkler systems are provided in new blocks of flats from 30 metres to 11 metres and greatly increased the number of future homes provided with sprinkler protection. This was the first step in a full technical review of Approved Document B, which will include research to ensure that any changes to this guidance is based on a robust evidence base. The technical review programme includes a workstream reviewing the current provisions for new specialised housing and care homes such as the one in which Mr Golds resided.”

    Source location

    2021-0284-Response-from-Department-for-Levelling-Up-Housing-Communities_Published.pdf
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 September 2021

    Open published response

  6. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Christopher Carlton Hart · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Christopher Carlton Hart was found collapsed in a flat fire on 13 January 2019 and later died at Stepping Hill Hospital from complications of injuries sustained in the fire. The likely cause was a discarded cigarette igniting bedding on a sofa. Concerns included the lack of conditions requiring tenants’ furniture to meet relevant fire safety standards and the absence of a formal review of installing sprinklers in housing properties.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to undertake a formal review of sprinkler introduction across properties

    Wider context from the report

    “2) The court also heard evidence that, had a sprinkler system been installed within the flat, the chances of Mr Hart surviving the fire would have been significant increased. It is a matter of concern that, notwithstanding Mr Hart’s death, Johnnie Johnson Housing is apparently yet to undertake any formal review as to the introduction of sprinklers into all or a proportion of its properties. ”

    Source location

    Christopher Carlton Hart · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The general-needs home was not considered high risk, so installing sprinklers was not warranted.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I thought it useful to write back, just to re-iterate that there is no further action for us to take here. Mr Jenrick’s comments relate firstly to ‘blocks’. Mr Hart lived in a general needs home, built to standard in 1999. There was no high risk identified here to have installed a sprinkler.”

    Source location

    2019-0272-Response-from-Johnnie-Johnson-Housing-1
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 October 2019

    Open published response

  7. Manchester City

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Brian MacLean · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Mr Brian MacLean died on 19 March 2016 from smoke inhalation contributed to by alcohol toxicity after a fire started while he was smoking on his sofa. The report raised concerns about insufficiently proactive social services involvement, failure to identify and refer him as being at risk of fire, and the absence of automatic processes for fire-risk assessment, referrals, sprinklers and other preventive measures.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of automatic water suppression systems for blocks of flats and individuals at high risk

    Wider context from the report

    “4. It is clear that GPHA did not have an automatic water suppression system (sprinklers) that could be fitted to properties which comprise blocks of flats and or for individuals at high risk. In addition appropriate smoke alarms and other assistive technology could have been installed. 5. The recipients of this report would be well advised to read and digest the detailed GMFRS Fire Investigation Report and its recommendations which are wholly endorsed by the court. ”

    Source location

    Mr Brian MacLean · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

  8. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Emma Waring · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Emma Waring, aged 23, died after a fire in her rented accommodation on 7 March 2015, having been overcome by toxic smoke while attempting to escape. The principal concern was the need to consider compulsory inclusion of domestic automatic water suppression systems, particularly in residential properties housing vulnerable individuals.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of automatic water suppression systems in residential properties

    Wider context from the report

    “Immediate and positive consideration of the compulsory inclusion in the design, planning and building phases for residential properties (especially for those properties housing vulnerable individuals) of Automatic Water Suppression Systems more commonly known as ‘domestic sprinklers’ so as to provide further safeguards in the event of accidental or indeed deliberate fires in such premises. ”

    Source location

    Emma Waring · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Install and maintain domestic sprinkler systems integrated with smoke alarms in properties occupied by vulnerable tenants.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “However, despite the lack of such legislation RBH has delivered domestic sprinklers in several properties occupied by some of our most vulnerable tenants. The decision to install domestic sprinklers was based on a number of factors not least of which was a desire to maintain their quality of life whilst at the same time offering them the very best protection from fire that we could. These installations were approved by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service who were involved in the process from the outset and were installed by fully qualified sprinkler engineers. The sprinklers are connected to integrated smoke alarms which will only operate when a fire actually occurs and actuates a sprinkler head thereby significantly reducing the likelihood of false alarms.”

    Source location

    2015-0383-Response-by-RBH
    Page 1 · response
    Published 22 September 2015

    Open published response

  9. Coventry

    AI-generated summary

    Amanda Richards · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Amanda Richards, a wheelchair user with live-in carers for 22 hours per day, died in a fire on 3 December 2013 after apparently dropping a cigarette while she was alone. The report raised concern that domestic sprinkler systems in special accommodation could have made such a death far less likely.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of domestic sprinkler systems in special accommodation

    Wider context from the report

    “I heard from Fire Investigation Officer Holder that the provision of a domestic sprinkler system would have made the death far less likely. I accept that the provision of such a system throughout your housing stock would be prohibitively expensive but I ask you to consider such provision in special accommodation such as Ms Richards. ”

    Source location

    Amanda Richards · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Work with other agencies to understand risks affecting residents in special accommodation and agree specific safety actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The action plan will include specific actions for Whitefriars Housing Group, and we have agreed with others present that all agencies need to work together to better understand the risks and issues surrounding the needs of individual residents in special accommodation. Through those agencies working together we will agree specific actions to be undertaken or works to be implemented to meet the needs of the resident. If through such joint working it is agreed that the provision of a domestic sprinkler system to an individual dwelling would be the appropriate action to be taken then I confirm that Whitefriars Housing Group would consider and pay for the installation. I can also confirm that such works would be carried out without delay once the course of action had been agreed.”

    Source location

    2014-0228-Response-by-Whitefriars-Housing
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 May 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Decisions on resident-specific safety measures, including sprinklers, will be agreed through joint agency working before installation is considered.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The action plan will include specific actions for Whitefriars Housing Group, and we have agreed with others present that all agencies need to work together to better understand the risks and issues surrounding the needs of individual residents in special accommodation. Through those agencies working together we will agree specific actions to be undertaken or works to be implemented to meet the needs of the resident. If through such joint working it is agreed that the provision of a domestic sprinkler system to an individual dwelling would be the appropriate action to be taken then I confirm that Whitefriars Housing Group would consider and pay for the installation. I can also confirm that such works would be carried out without delay once the course of action had been agreed.”

    Source location

    2014-0228-Response-by-Whitefriars-Housing
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 May 2014

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026