Recurring concern

Unreliable management of observed heat signatures during police searches

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 5 Dec 2024•Latest report 30 Mar 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes police-search processes for identifying, recording, communicating, assessing, re-tasking and acting on observed heat signatures or heat sources, including NPAS observations and coordination between air-search personnel, call handlers, supervisors and ground search teams.

Not included

Excludes generic missing-person response failures where observed heat-signature information is not the material unsafe condition.
Excludes general police communication, recording or search-coordination deficiencies that are not specifically connected to observed heat signatures or heat sources during a police search.
Excludes delays in requesting unrelated mutual aid, specialist teams or search resources where no observed heat-signature management failure is identified.
Excludes the underlying failure to locate a person when the police search information process operated reliably.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 5
Date range: 2024–2026
Stated actions: 3

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.

Cleveland Police1

Department of Health and Social Care1

London Borough of Newham1

National Police Air Service1

Social Work England1

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.

30 Mar2026
Teesside and Hartlepool
Concerns raised3
1. Failure to communicate accurate heat-source information to the family
2. Lack of liaison between officers during searches
3. Failure to heed identified heat-source details
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
  Amend the Silver Commander rota to provide shift-based supervisory leadership during evening and heightened-demand periods for high-risk missing-person incidents.
  Stated by Cleveland PoliceStated completed
AI-generated summary

Grant Nicholas LOWRY · 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

Grant Nicholas LOWRY left home on 1 June 2022 after sending a text indicating suicidal intent and was found deceased in the early hours of 3 June 2022 following an uncoordinated search. Concerns included inaccurate and incomplete recording of search information, communication failures, delayed requests for additional search resources, and inadequate operational equipment for one officer. The inquest found that missed opportunities in mental health care and the search deficiencies contributed to the circumstances surrounding his death.

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 communicate accurate heat-source information to the family
Wider context from the report
“There were issues with communication and record keeping which impacted on the quality and effectiveness of the searches undertaken. Some prevented re-tasking of further and full searches of the heat sources, to include: 1. The location of the first NPAS heat source was not recorded accurately. 2. The outcome of the search into the first NPAS heat source was not recorded accurately by the Officers involved or the call handler, whether in an Officer's day book, or on the STORM log, OEL or CAD. This prevented re-tasking of a search at that area. 3. The details of the second NPAS heat source were not heeded, whether by the Officers at Summerhill Park, the call handler or listening Supervision. This meant the heat source was not searched or recorded. 4. There was no liaison between Hartlepool and Stockton officers during the search at Summerhill Park on the evening of 01.06.22. This contributed to an unorganised and uncoordinated search. 5. There was inaccurate recording of which fields around ████████ had been searched, which was relied upon by Supervision and prevented later searches of those areas. 6. The family were told that no heat sources had been identified by NPAS. 7. There were delays in requesting Polsa Mutual Aid from neighbouring police forces. 8. There were delays in requesting the involvement of Mountain Rescue( with their dogs) and the police dog unit. In addition, the officer who was guided by NPAS to the first heat source did not have a full set of operational PPE for a search at night time in a dense area. The batteries on his torch and work mobile phone were flat. ”
Source location
Grant Nicholas LOWRY · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
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 liaison between officers during searches
Wider context from the report
“There were issues with communication and record keeping which impacted on the quality and effectiveness of the searches undertaken. Some prevented re-tasking of further and full searches of the heat sources, to include: 1. The location of the first NPAS heat source was not recorded accurately. 2. The outcome of the search into the first NPAS heat source was not recorded accurately by the Officers involved or the call handler, whether in an Officer's day book, or on the STORM log, OEL or CAD. This prevented re-tasking of a search at that area. 3. The details of the second NPAS heat source were not heeded, whether by the Officers at Summerhill Park, the call handler or listening Supervision. This meant the heat source was not searched or recorded. 4. There was no liaison between Hartlepool and Stockton officers during the search at Summerhill Park on the evening of 01.06.22. This contributed to an unorganised and uncoordinated search. 5. There was inaccurate recording of which fields around ████████ had been searched, which was relied upon by Supervision and prevented later searches of those areas. 6. The family were told that no heat sources had been identified by NPAS. 7. There were delays in requesting Polsa Mutual Aid from neighbouring police forces. 8. There were delays in requesting the involvement of Mountain Rescue( with their dogs) and the police dog unit. In addition, the officer who was guided by NPAS to the first heat source did not have a full set of operational PPE for a search at night time in a dense area. The batteries on his torch and work mobile phone were flat. ”
Source location
Grant Nicholas LOWRY · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
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 heed identified heat-source details
Wider context from the report
“There were issues with communication and record keeping which impacted on the quality and effectiveness of the searches undertaken. Some prevented re-tasking of further and full searches of the heat sources, to include: 1. The location of the first NPAS heat source was not recorded accurately. 2. The outcome of the search into the first NPAS heat source was not recorded accurately by the Officers involved or the call handler, whether in an Officer's day book, or on the STORM log, OEL or CAD. This prevented re-tasking of a search at that area. 3. The details of the second NPAS heat source were not heeded, whether by the Officers at Summerhill Park, the call handler or listening Supervision. This meant the heat source was not searched or recorded. 4. There was no liaison between Hartlepool and Stockton officers during the search at Summerhill Park on the evening of 01.06.22. This contributed to an unorganised and uncoordinated search. 5. There was inaccurate recording of which fields around ████████ had been searched, which was relied upon by Supervision and prevented later searches of those areas. 6. The family were told that no heat sources had been identified by NPAS. 7. There were delays in requesting Polsa Mutual Aid from neighbouring police forces. 8. There were delays in requesting the involvement of Mountain Rescue( with their dogs) and the police dog unit. In addition, the officer who was guided by NPAS to the first heat source did not have a full set of operational PPE for a search at night time in a dense area. The batteries on his torch and work mobile phone were flat. ”
Source location
Grant Nicholas LOWRY · 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
Amend the Silver Commander rota to provide shift-based supervisory leadership during evening and heightened-demand periods for high-risk missing-person incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Additional supervision has also been increased with explicit scrutiny of high-risk missing persons investigations by senior officers (Silver Commanders):”

Source location
Response from Cleveland Police
Page 3 · response
Published 7 April 2026
Open published response
5 Dec2024
East London
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to communicate observed heat signatures during searches
2. Failure to appropriately assess heat signatures during searches
This report raised 6 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 2
1. Action
  Review NPAS training and operational practices to identify improvements supporting future search safety.
  Stated by National Police Air ServiceStated planned
2. Action
  Incorporate the incident footage as a case study and training tool in the next NPAS training course.
  Stated by National Police Air ServiceStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Investigating every heat source on every incident is impracticable and could be counterproductive by causing delays that contribute to future deaths.
  Stated by National Police Air ServiceUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Mazeedat Adeoye · 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

Mazeedat Adeoye, a two-year-old girl, drowned on 29 January 2022 after falling into a water-filled plastic refuse bin while playing alone and inadequately supervised in a volunteer carer’s garden. The report identifies concerns about failures by local authority child services to arrange appropriate temporary care, as well as concerns regarding police search procedures, social-worker conduct and supervision, and inadequate record-keeping.

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 communicate observed heat signatures during searches
Wider context from the report
“1. NPAS helicopter resources were utilised in the search for Mazeedat on 29th January 2022. At 16.40, a small circular heat signature was observed by a tactical flight officer within the garden where Mazeedat’s body was ultimately located. The shape and size of the object meant that the object was “discounted” in the search and its presence was not communicated to anyone. Mazeedat was discovered 11 minutes later by a police dog unit on the ground. Whereas the delay in locating Mazeedat did not contribute to her tragic death, the decision to discount such a heat signature could, in another case, amount to a risk of fatal harm. ”
Source location
Mazeedat Adeoye · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
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 appropriately assess heat signatures during searches
Wider context from the report
“1. NPAS helicopter resources were utilised in the search for Mazeedat on 29th January 2022. At 16.40, a small circular heat signature was observed by a tactical flight officer within the garden where Mazeedat’s body was ultimately located. The shape and size of the object meant that the object was “discounted” in the search and its presence was not communicated to anyone. Mazeedat was discovered 11 minutes later by a police dog unit on the ground. Whereas the delay in locating Mazeedat did not contribute to her tragic death, the decision to discount such a heat signature could, in another case, amount to a risk of fatal harm. ”
Source location
Mazeedat Adeoye · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · 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
Review NPAS training and operational practices to identify improvements supporting future search safety.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Whilst acknowledging that the delay in locating Mazeedat did not contribute to her tragic death, I fully accept that our training and operational practices require a review to ensure that future deaths are prevented wherever possible. In coming to my decisions I have liaised with ████████, Head of Flight Operations, ████████, Tactical Flight Officer and technical SME, ████████, Training and Quality Standards Manager and ████████, Regional Operations Manager. There is a large breadth of knowledge and experience between these staff members, both in wider aviation and policing.”

Source location
Response from National Police Air Service
Page 1 · response
Published 6 December 2024
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
Incorporate the incident footage as a case study and training tool in the next NPAS training course.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I will however utilise this footage as a case study / training tool for NPAS that may give perspective to search scenarios moving forward. Should a situation present itself in a similar way it may cause a TFO to think beyond the info / intel where time and circumstances allow. This will be incorporated from the next training course that commences on 14th February.”

Source location
Response from National Police Air Service
Page 2 · response
Published 6 December 2024
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
Investigating every heat source on every incident is impracticable and could be counterproductive by causing delays that contribute to future deaths.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Moving forwards, to investigate every heat source on every incident would not be practicable and may be counter productive, leading to delays that could also contribute to future deaths. There will always be a balance to be maintained.”

Source location
Response from National Police Air Service
Page 2 · response
Published 6 December 2024
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised3

Failure to communicate accurate heat-source information to the family

Lack of liaison between officers during searches

Failure to heed identified heat-source details

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

Concerns raised2

Failure to communicate observed heat signatures during searches

Failure to appropriately assess heat signatures during searches

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.2

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

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 1