Recurring concern
Unreliable emergency forced-entry arrangements
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 7 Jul 2015•Latest report 8 Jul 2025
What this concern includes
Includes failures in dedicated emergency forced-entry arrangements, including missing or unclear legal powers, authority, responsibility, decision-making or procedures for ambulance, fire, police or comparable emergency services seeking entry to protect or treat a person inside premises.
Not included
- Excludes ordinary building access or key-management failures where no emergency forced-entry authority or arrangement is at issue.
- Excludes general emergency response delays that do not concern gaining lawful entry to premises.
- Excludes unrelated gaps in police, ambulance or fire powers that do not concern emergency entry to premises for a person requiring urgent protection or treatment.
- Excludes generic communication or training deficiencies unless they directly cause uncertainty or failure in the emergency forced-entry arrangement.
- Reports
- 3
- Individual concerns
- 3
- Date range
- 2015–2025
- Stated actions
- 6
Distinct published reports
A report can raise multiple concerns
First to latest report issue date
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.
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.
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of emergency powers of entry for ambulance and fire services
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
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
-
Action
Engage Department of Health and Social Care counterparts about ambulance personnel access rights.
Stated by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
-
Position
Fire and rescue authorities cannot use PACE entry powers but possess independent statutory emergency entry powers under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.
Stated by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
-
Position
Ambulance and Fire and Rescue services’ powers of entry fall outside the Home Office’s remit.
Stated by Home Office -
Position
Ambulance and Fire and Rescue services’ powers of entry are matters for the responsible health and fire departments.
Stated by Home Office
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of clarity about lawful authority and responsibility for forced entry
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
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.3
-
Action
Support forces and partner agencies to develop and disseminate local protocols defining responsibilities for forced entry.
Stated by College of Policing -
Action
Implement the inter-agency Gaining Entry Memorandum of Understanding defining responsibility for forced entry when NWAS requires access.
Stated by Greater Manchester Police -
Action
Audit staff understanding of the RCRP policy and provide subject-matter-expert support where misunderstandings or ambiguity are identified.
Stated by Greater Manchester Police
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.5
-
Position
NWAS cannot force entry to properties because it lacks the legal powers and equipment.
Stated by North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust
-
Position
Police generally lack power to enter private dwellings for welfare checks absent a real and immediate risk, serious harm or suspected crime.
Stated by College of Policing -
Position
Local partnerships must determine agency responsibility for forced entry, with partner agencies potentially providing appropriate powers, training and equipment.
Stated by College of Policing -
Position
The existing gaining-entry memorandum clearly allocates responsibilities and provides entry support through GMFRS or, if necessary, GMP.
Stated by Greater Manchester Police -
Position
GMFRS is the primary agency to force entry when NWAS leads a concern-for-welfare incident and requests assistance.
Stated by Greater Manchester Police
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of a clearly thought-out and applied policy for forced entry decisions
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 concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
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
-
Action
Use the case example in method-of-entry training to teach officers to balance legal entry thresholds with indicators requiring urgent entry to save life.
Stated by Greater Manchester Police -
Action
Issue a forcewide message encouraging and empowering officers to use forced entry when welfare concerns justify it.
Stated by Greater Manchester Police
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
No policy issues are known to have affected the officers’ decisions in this case.
Stated by Greater Manchester Police
Data last updated 7 September 2026