Recurring concern

Ineffective site security patrols

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 23 Jul 2015•Latest report 25 Aug 2020

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of dedicated site-security patrol arrangements, including inadequate alertness, inconsistent or insufficient patrol frequency, ineffective patrol activity and unreliable patrol records where these impair monitoring of the site.

Not included

Excludes general site-access, fencing, warning-signage or CCTV deficiencies where no security-patrol failure is identified.
Excludes generic security staffing, training or equipment deficiencies unless they directly make site-security patrols ineffective.
Excludes police patrols, vehicle patrols and other operational patrols unless the assertion concerns the same dedicated site-security patrol function.
Excludes unrelated clinical, custodial or public-space monitoring processes.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 2
Date range: 2015–2020
Stated actions: 2

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

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

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

British Transport Police1

First Response Group1

London Borough of Camden1

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.

25 Aug2020
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to provide effective security patrols
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Obtain approval and implement a standard Site Security Scope of Service across contracts requiring contracted security.
  Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated planned
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  First Response is best placed to respond to concerns about its employees’ evidence and conduct at the site.
  Stated by London Borough of CamdenRedirects responsibility
1. Position
  Existing site security arrangements were considered suitable based on property reviews and comprehensive controls already operating at Aspen House.
  Stated by London Borough of CamdenExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Daniel Richard COLEMAN · 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

Daniel Richard Coleman, a construction site manager living at a demolition site, died in an accidental fire associated with his production of crystal meth. The report raised concerns that his occupation of the site and frequent illicit drug use went unnoticed, that site security was ineffective, that records of his presence were incomplete, and that the drug and alcohol policy had not led to any drug testing.

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 provide effective security patrols
Wider context from the report
“3. The evidence from the two First Response night time security officers who came to court was inconsistent and concerning. One said that he always patrolled twice an hour. The other said that each officer patrolled once every two hours. When I asked one officer what he did in between patrols (I was keen to exclude the possibility of security officers sleeping through the night), he said that it took him five minutes to write up each patrol, then he just sat and waited for the next patrol. The writing up he described was one line only, exactly the same line recorded with the time advanced by one hour as on the previous line. This would have taken a matter of seconds. One officer gave evidence that he photographed the building during every one of his patrols. It later emerged that this protocol of photographing was only introduced after 14 February 2020, though I had specifically asked about the situation before Mr Coleman’s death. I was misled. This does not paint a picture of effective security. ”
Source location
Daniel Richard COLEMAN · 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
Obtain approval and implement a standard Site Security Scope of Service across contracts requiring contracted security.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As outlined above, the Council already had in place comprehensive systems for the security arrangements at Aspen House. Nevertheless, the Council has over the last few months considered its relationship with security providers across its operations and has developed a ‘Site Security Scope of Service’ specification (“the Specification”) for use across all of its contracts that require contracted security services. The Specification sets out the Council’s expectation of the standards employed by the security contractors that it engages. Third party security companies such as First Response, will be required to adhere to the requirements outlined in the Specification at all times.”

Source location
2020-0166-Response-from-Camden-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 26 October 2020
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
First Response is best placed to respond to concerns about its employees’ evidence and conduct at the site.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Matters 3, 4 and 5 relate in the main to the Coroner’s interpretation of the evidence given at the Inquest by First Response employees. The Council heard the evidence given to the Inquest by the First Response security guards under oath, and it makes no comment on observations about that evidence. The Council considers that Matters 3, 4 and 5 are concerns that First Response would be best placed to respond to however the Coroner’s general concern regarding the security arrangements in place are covered below.”

Source location
2020-0166-Response-from-Camden-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 26 October 2020
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 site security arrangements were considered suitable based on property reviews and comprehensive controls already operating at Aspen House.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the Incident, and prior to the Inquest, the Council conducted a full review of its properties earmarked for future development projects i.e. either properties that were empty or had live in guardians in place for security purposes. Inspections were carried out of those properties to check for potential unauthorised access/use and nothing was found, indicating”

Source location
2020-0166-Response-from-Camden-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 26 October 2020
Open published response
23 Jul2015
Black Country
Concerns raised1
1. Failure of security patrols to remain alert and effective
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Discuss with Network Rail whether employing a security officer would be cost-effective.
  Stated by British Transport PoliceStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The security officer reportedly seen at the site was employed by a nearby haulage or construction site, not Network Rail.
  Stated by British Transport PoliceDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Mr Ashley Aaron Matthews · 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

Ashley Matthews accessed Bescot Traction Maintenance Depot, climbed over a railway bridge and was electrocuted after contacting a high-voltage cable. He died in hospital from extensive full-thickness burns. Concerns included insecure perimeter fencing, inadequate security patrols and a lack of warning signs about the high-voltage cabling.

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 of security patrols to remain alert and effective
Wider context from the report
“(1) During the course of the inquest, evidence suggested that access to the site was gained by insecure fencing. (2) After the death of Ashley Matthews, the family were able to gain access to the site unchallenged by security. (3) The family witnessed the security guard asleep in his car. (4) Others had gained access and placed flowers on Bridge 26. (5) The family witnessed someone on the site walking with their dog and placing flowers on bridge 26. (6) Evidence suggested that some parts of the perimeter fencing were secured with cable ties. (7) Evidence suggested there were no warning signs on Bridge 26 warning of the dangers posed by high voltage cabling. (8) In light of the inquest findings, you may wish to consider the physical security of the site including fencing as well as the security patrols in place. ”
Source location
Mr Ashley Aaron Matthews · 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
Discuss with Network Rail whether employing a security officer would be cost-effective.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Point 8. Network rail have never employed a security officer at the depot. It is currently used as a marshalling yard for trucks carrying low value railway ballast. I have discussed point 8 with ████████ who will be speaking with Network Rail to see if a security officer would be cost effective. He has mentioned that the site where this fatality took place is not actually within the area of the marshalling yard but is on the access line that runs towards it.”

Source location
2015-0297-Response-by-BTP
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2015
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
The security officer reportedly seen at the site was employed by a nearby haulage or construction site, not Network Rail.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The construction site for the adjacent distribution depot was well underway, it has been established that the security officer mentioned by the family was for this site and not associated in any way with Network Rail. No cable ties were found on Network Rail fencing, visit, however there are some cable ties securing temporary fencing that sounds the construction site.”

Source location
2015-0297-Response-by-BTP
Page 1 · response
Published 23 July 2015
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Failure to provide effective security patrols

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

Concerns raised1

Failure of security patrols to remain alert and effective

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 2

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 1