Recurring concern

Unreliable emergency forced-entry arrangements

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 7 Jul 2015•Latest report 8 Jul 2025

Definition

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

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
3

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2015–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
6

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.

Greater Manchester Police2
College of Policing1
Home Office1
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government1

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. East Riding and Hull

    AI-generated summary

    Peter Ramsden · 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

    Peter Ramsden, who had not been seen for approximately two months, was found deceased in an advanced state of decomposition at his premises on 2 January 2025. The inquest concluded that his death was from natural causes, although no specific disease process was identified. The principal concern was a perceived gap in the law concerning powers of entry for ambulance and fire services when an incapacitated person may require urgent treatment.

    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 emergency powers of entry for ambulance and fire services

    Wider context from the report

    “Evidence was heard that there is a lacuna in the law, specifically relating to section 17 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which grants police officers the power to enter and search premises without a warrant in specific situations. These include, inter alia, entry for arrest and emergency situations which allows entry to save life or limb or prevent serious damage to a property. In this particular case, evidence was heard that this man had not been seen for two months and there were concerns about his welfare and paramedics attended on one occasion but have no powers of entry. Due to the Right Care, Right Person model, which has been developed over the last few years, the police did not get involved, as it was thought by the concerned individual that this man not being seen was due to a medical problem. Evidence was heard which suggested that on occasions, the ambulance service and the fire service should have powers of entry in the event that a person who is ill, unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, with a remediable disorder, can receive prompt and potentially life-saving treatment. In this case, causation would not have been established as the man has been dead for several weeks, but situations could and will arise where time-sensitive pathological processes require emergency treatment to save life. ”

    Source location

    Peter Ramsden · 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

    Engage Department of Health and Social Care counterparts about ambulance personnel access rights.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “CONCLUSION We appreciate the very sad circumstances of the passing of Mr. Ramsden. Whilst in the opinion of the NFCC and FRAs, a statutory framework exists for FRAs to support the public in tragic situations like Mr. Ramsden’s, the NFCC suggests there is an argument for an extension of powers to ambulance services as it would improve speed of response and reduce the burden on FRAs. I am copying this letter to the Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to be aware of the comments concerning rights of access for ambulance personnel; I have also asked my officials to engage with their counterparts at DHSC on this topic.”

    Source location

    Response from Housing, communities and Local Government
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 September 2025

    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

    Fire and rescue authorities cannot use PACE entry powers but possess independent statutory emergency entry powers under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Concerning the legal position, Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs), the legal body overseeing fire and rescue services, cannot lawfully operate under section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. However, they do possess independent statutory powers of entry under section 44 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. In the event of an emergency, section 44(1)(c) and 44(2)(a) of the Act allows authorised FRA personnel to enter premises (by force if necessary) without the consent of the owner or occupier of the premises or place, if they reasonably believe entry is needed to protect life or property. Section 58(a) of the Act defines an ‘emergency’ as an event or situation likely to cause death, serious injury, or serious illness.”

    Source location

    Response from Housing, communities and Local Government
    Page 1 · response
    Published 19 September 2025

    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

    Ambulance and Fire and Rescue services’ powers of entry fall outside the Home Office’s remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Your letter raises issues around powers of entry for Ambulance services and Fire and Rescue services. I believe my officials had previously contacted your office to alert you that this is not within the remit of the Home Office but rather the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (lead on fire services) and Department for Health and Social Care (lead on paramedics). My officials have brought these matters to the attention of relevant colleagues from those departments.”

    Source location

    Response from Home Office
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 September 2025

    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

    Ambulance and Fire and Rescue services’ powers of entry are matters for the responsible health and fire departments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Your letter raises issues around powers of entry for Ambulance services and Fire and Rescue services. I believe my officials had previously contacted your office to alert you that this is not within the remit of the Home Office but rather the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (lead on fire services) and Department for Health and Social Care (lead on paramedics). My officials have brought these matters to the attention of relevant colleagues from those departments.”

    Source location

    Response from Home Office
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 September 2025

    Open published response

  2. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    Elaine TARBUCK · 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

    Elaine TARBUCK died after an accidental fall at home, sustaining a head injury and exsanguinating before she was found unresponsive on 29 March 2025. The report identified concerns about the assessment and information gathering by emergency services, delays in arranging forced entry, and the application of the ‘Right Care, Right Person’ policy.

    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 clarity about lawful authority and responsibility for forced entry

    Wider context from the report

    “4. There was lack of understanding as to whether the forced entry would be lawful, a matter for the police, or a matter for Fire and Rescue Services in circumstances that the next-of-kin, if asked, would have agreed readily to there being forced entry at the outset and well before their arrival. ”

    Source location

    Elaine TARBUCK · 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

    Support forces and partner agencies to develop and disseminate local protocols defining responsibilities for forced entry.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The confusion over which agency should take responsibility for forced entry is a key learning point. The RCRP guidance encourages local partnerships to develop clear protocols that define roles and responsibilities in such scenarios. These protocols should be communicated effectively to all frontline staff to avoid hesitation or uncertainty during time-critical incidents.”

    Source location

    Response from College of Policing
    Page 2 · response
    Published 16 July 2025

    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

    Implement the inter-agency Gaining Entry Memorandum of Understanding defining responsibility for forced entry when NWAS requires access.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Gaining entry on behalf of NWAS”

    Source location

    Response from Greater Manchester Police
    Page 6 · response
    Published 16 July 2025

    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

    Audit staff understanding of the RCRP policy and provide subject-matter-expert support where misunderstandings or ambiguity are identified.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• RCRP policy re-read - To reinforce policy understanding, the FCCO is currently conducting an audit of all staff who have a role within the RCRP processes, including staff and supervisors within call handling, crime recording, customer enquiry unit and radio dispatch to ensure there is a record confirming they have read and understood the RCRP policy. All relevant staff have been given protected time to read the RCRP policy and subsequently confirm this has been completed via a Microsoft Form. This audit is expected to be completed by the end of August 2025.”

    Source location

    Response from Greater Manchester Police
    Page 11 · response
    Published 16 July 2025

    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

    NWAS cannot force entry to properties because it lacks the legal powers and equipment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• NWAS does not have the legal powers, nor the equipment to force entry to properties, this should be considered before any call for assistance is made.”

    Source location

    Response from North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 July 2025

    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

    Police generally lack power to enter private dwellings for welfare checks absent a real and immediate risk, serious harm or suspected crime.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The College recognises the public expectation that emergency services will respond swiftly and decisively when there is concern for someone’s welfare. However, the legal framework governing police powers of entry is clear: unless there is a real and immediate risk to life or of serious harm (as defined under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR), or a crime is suspected, police powers to enter a private dwelling are limited.”

    Source location

    Response from College of Policing
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 July 2025

    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

    Local partnerships must determine agency responsibility for forced entry, with partner agencies potentially providing appropriate powers, training and equipment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It explicitly states that there is no general power of entry for welfare checks reaffirming the position as set out within the case of Syed v DPP [2010] EWHC 81 (Admin) in relation to the powers of entry available to the police. The toolkit states ‘There is no specific power of entry to carry out a concern for welfare check…’. It also encourages forces to work with partners—particularly the Fire and Rescue Service—who may have the appropriate powers, training and equipment to gain entry in such circumstances. Please see an extract below and relevant link:”

    Source location

    Response from College of Policing
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 July 2025

    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 existing gaining-entry memorandum clearly allocates responsibilities and provides entry support through GMFRS or, if necessary, GMP.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “These measures were agreed by all three organisations (GMFRS, NWAS and GMP) and ensure that support to force entry can be provided to NWAS by either GMFRS or GMP when required.”

    Source location

    Response from Greater Manchester Police
    Page 6 · response
    Published 16 July 2025

    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

    GMFRS is the primary agency to force entry when NWAS leads a concern-for-welfare incident and requests assistance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In April 2024, GMP, NWAS and GMFRS signed the “Gaining Entry Memorandum of Understanding”. The purpose of the MoU is to outline a process to guide NWAS in circumstances whereby they need to gain entry into premises to assess patients who require an emergency clinical assessment. Under this MoU, GMFRS are the primary agency to support NWAS when forced entry is required at a premises. GMFRS will utilise their powers under the Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004, specifically Part 2 section 11, which notes:”

    Source location

    Response from Greater Manchester Police
    Page 6 · response
    Published 16 July 2025

    Open published response

  3. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Michael Lee Thorley · 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

    Michael Lee Thorley was found at his home after a delay in gaining entry following an emergency ambulance call. The medical cause of death was combined opiate/opioid toxicity, and the pathologist said there was a chance his life might have been saved if naloxone had been administered immediately. The report raised concerns about the delay in entry, the absence of a clear policy for forced entry, shortcomings in searching and investigating the scene, and the failure of a Detective Inspector to attend.

    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 a clearly thought-out and applied policy for forced entry decisions

    Wider context from the report

    “2. There was no clearly thought-out and applied policy as to whether it was better to risk breaking down a door unnecessarily or whether to risk the life of someone who may be collapsed inside. ”

    Source location

    Michael Lee Thorley · 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

    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.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Specialist Operational Training Unit which is responsible for training officers in both decision making and tactics will use this example during their method of entry training modules. They will highlight the need to balance the thresholds required for entry under Section 17 PACE Act with factors that indicate urgent entry is required to save life. In addition an internal message will be issued forcewide to encourage and empower officers reluctant to execute forced entry tactics in cases where there is concern for welfare. The”

    Source location

    2015-0260-Response-by-Greater-Manchester-Police
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 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

    Issue a forcewide message encouraging and empowering officers to use forced entry when welfare concerns justify it.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Specialist Operational Training Unit which is responsible for training officers in both decision making and tactics will use this example during their method of entry training modules. They will highlight the need to balance the thresholds required for entry under Section 17 PACE Act with factors that indicate urgent entry is required to save life. In addition an internal message will be issued forcewide to encourage and empower officers reluctant to execute forced entry tactics in cases where there is concern for welfare. The”

    Source location

    2015-0260-Response-by-Greater-Manchester-Police
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 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

    No policy issues are known to have affected the officers’ decisions in this case.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It is apparent that most officers understand their powers of entry and are willing and able to force entry when it is clearly necessary and appropriate. However it seems that there are some occasions when the particular circumstances and the available information appear to cause a degree of hesitation. Our training and prioritisation is clearly emphasising public safety, and I am not aware of any policy issues that might have affected the officers’ decisions in this particular case.”

    Source location

    2015-0260-Response-by-Greater-Manchester-Police
    Page 2 · response
    Published 7 July 2015

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026