Recurring concern

Failure to ensure police officers receive and retain required training and operational guidance

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 13 Jul 2015•Latest report 25 Mar 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in police arrangements for prioritising, delivering, updating, monitoring uptake of and assuring understanding of required training and operational guidance, including refresher training, protected training time, digital access to SOPs, guidance familiarisation and checks that officers have completed or understood relevant updates.

Not included

Excludes training or guidance deficiencies outside policing unless the assertion explicitly concerns the police training and operational-guidance system.
Excludes failures in a separately named police safety system or operational process where that system provides the more specific supported boundary.
Excludes generic staffing, workload or organisational-learning concerns unless they directly impair receipt, retention, access to or understanding of required police training or operational guidance.
Excludes failures to apply guidance after officers have reliably received and understood it, where the training and guidance system itself was adequate.

Reports: 11
Individual concerns: 15
Date range: 2015–2026
Stated actions: 24

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.

College of Policing5

Metropolitan Police Service4

National Police Chiefs’ Council3

Dorset Police1

Haleon UK Trading Limited1

National Crime Agency1

Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council1

Northumbria Police1

South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust1

South Yorkshire Police1

Thames Valley Police1

West Midlands Police1

West Yorkshire Police1

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.

13 Jul2015
Inner South London
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to require sufficient refresher training and skills updates for police officers
This report raised 3 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 4
1. Action
  Embed the National Decision Model in recruit and refresher training, pursuit procedures, and online reference toolkits.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated completed
2. Action
  Develop and deliver pursuit-narration and radio-operator training incorporating risk assessment, stress management, and the ‘A Pursuit’ model.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated completed
3. Action
  Conduct a scoping exercise to determine resources and training abstractions required for a recurring, formally assessed refresher regime for police drivers.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated in progress
1. Action
  Extend the radio-operator pursuit training package to officers who joined before its introduction, potentially through a revised computer-delivered format.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Current driver assessment drives sufficiently comply with the regulatory regime and check that response-level drivers remain safe and capable.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Viktoria Was · 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

Viktoria Was died on 6 January 2013, aged 13, after being injured in a road traffic collision while travelling as a rear-seat passenger in a Volkswagen Polo. The concerns included insufficient regard for injured third parties at the scene, inadequate evidence that lessons had been learned from police pursuits, and insufficient refresher training for police officers.

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 require sufficient refresher training and skills updates for police officers
Wider context from the report
“(3) Police Officers were not required to attend for sufficient ‘refresher’ training; either at all, at satisfactory intervals, or of a sufficiently rigorous nature. This revealed a gap in continued learning and skills updates. In this regard, I would be concerned to learn if lessons to be learnt from this investigation about the potential impact of police pursuits on third parties were not disseminated to officers as soon as reasonably possible. ”
Source location
Viktoria Was · 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
Embed the National Decision Model in recruit and refresher training, pursuit procedures, and online reference toolkits.

Verbatim wording from the response
“A simple mnemonic - ‘COW’ - Casualties, Obstructions, Witnesses - has long been a cornerstone of officer training in the handling of road traffic incidents, reminding first responders of their priorities as they arrive on scene. However, since the tragic death of Ms WAS, further steps have been taken by the MPS to better equip our officers, firstly with the cognitive tools to structure their choices in such difficult circumstances, and subsequently to better evidence these choices in a way which can make their rationale more readily apparent to others. For example, the Metropolitan Police now subscribes to the National Decision Model (NDM), developed by the College Of Policing.”

Source location
2015-0271-Response-by-Metropolitan-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 13 July 2015
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
Develop and deliver pursuit-narration and radio-operator training incorporating risk assessment, stress management, and the ‘A Pursuit’ model.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Development and delivery of a Pursuit Narration training package for in car radio operators for all new recruits.”

Source location
2015-0271-Response-by-Metropolitan-Police
Page 13 · response
Published 13 July 2015
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
Conduct a scoping exercise to determine resources and training abstractions required for a recurring, formally assessed refresher regime for police drivers.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We note however your concerns regarding the ‘…gap in continued learning and skills updates’. We are also mindful of proposed changes to the regulatory framework. Section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006 seeks to amend Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to regularise the current use by police, fire and ambulance services”

Source location
2015-0271-Response-by-Metropolitan-Police
Page 17 · response
Published 13 July 2015
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
Extend the radio-operator pursuit training package to officers who joined before its introduction, potentially through a revised computer-delivered format.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Since its introduction this package has been rolled out to selected elements of the Territorial Policing (uniformed) workforce; and since July 2014 all new recruits to the service have had this input. Steps are in hand to ensure that the officers serving prior to the course introduction, and who have yet to receive the benefit of it, may have an opportunity to take the course in the near future, most likely re-worked as a computer-delivered package.”

Source location
2015-0271-Response-by-Metropolitan-Police
Page 19 · response
Published 13 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
Current driver assessment drives sufficiently comply with the regulatory regime and check that response-level drivers remain safe and capable.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In order to maintain their driving qualification, police drivers in the MPS are currently required to undertake an “Assessment Drive” conducted at a local level, by Advanced Drivers who have themselves been trained to carry out these assessments. Our Driving assessors are highly qualified ‘advanced drivers’ (formerly Level 1), who have attended the MPS Driving School for a 3 day course and are taught how to give feedback on an officers driving. Our current assessments are carried out at Response Car Level, and consist of a ‘normal’ drive which does not make use of any legal exemptions, together with a simulated emergency response drive using appropriate warning equipment and making use of legal exemptions. This is sufficient to comply with the current regulatory regime and, at a practical level, to check that drivers tested at Response Car level are safe and capable.”

Source location
2015-0271-Response-by-Metropolitan-Police
Page 17 · response
Published 13 July 2015
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Failure to require sufficient refresher training and skills updates for police officers

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.4

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 4

Respondent positions 1