First reported 21 Oct 2013•Latest report 17 Mar 2026
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes failures in police force control, incident, custody or inter-force communications where relevant risk or safety information is not reliably shared with attending personnel or partner services, including the anchor's omission of recent s136 detention information and failures to pass complete incident information to attending officers.
Not included
Excludes generic clinical, social-care or non-police handover and documentation failures unless they are explicitly part of a police operational communication pathway.
Excludes failures concerning the content, training or policy of a police process where communication of safety-critical information is not itself the shared unsafe condition.
Excludes generic information-technology, staffing or supervision deficiencies that are not explicitly tied to the reliability of police operational communications.
Excludes communications about non-safety-critical administrative information.
Reports
34
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
40
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2013–2026
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
65
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.
Department of Health and Social Care7
Metropolitan Police Service7
Home Office6
National Police Chiefs’ Council6
College of Policing5
West Midlands Police5
Crown Prosecution Service2
Devon & Cornwall Police2
Greater Manchester Police2
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust2
Ministry of Justice2
NHS England2
Northumbria Police2
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust2
South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust2
Police force25
NHS trust12
National policing body10
Ministerial department9
English county council2
English metropolitan district council2
Executive non-departmental public body2
Mayoral policing body2
Non-ministerial department2
English unitary authority1
Executive agency1
Fire and rescue service1
Healthcare site1
Health-system partnership1
Higher education regulator1
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.
South London
Concerns raised1
Failures in communication during welfare-check responses
Responses linked to these concerns
Each 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
Deliver learning to MPS staff and officers on district location sharing and compliance with relevant standard operating procedures.
Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 7 August 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
The records do not show a communication failure between Surrey Police and the Metropolitan Police Service; both calls were handled correctly.
Stated by Surrey PoliceDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Existing procedures for transferring calls to other police forces were followed appropriately and ensured timely information transfer.
Stated by Surrey PoliceExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
No communication failure between Surrey Police and the Metropolitan Police occurred because no record of a relevant 4 January call exists.
Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Birmingham and Solihull
Concerns raised3
Failure to ensure police access to the written risk assessment
Lack of police officer awareness of the required risk rating
Lack of formal notification of police disagreement about risk category
This report raised 9 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 An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5
Action
Replace Appendix C with a decision-recording form documenting the reasons for critical concern and provide it to attending police officers.
Stated by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 June 2024.
Action
Establish a process for officers to request electronic risk assessments through a central Locate Team inbox with overnight supervisory monitoring.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 June 2024.
Action
Share information with health systems on establishing multi-agency governance, delivery structures, risk management, escalation and communication.
Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 June 2024.
Action
Issue guidance to health systems covering multi-agency governance, delivery structures and real-time and retrospective escalation processes.
Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 June 2024.
Action
Review and update the WMP Missing Person Policy to address daily appraisal attendance, clinician risk assessments, recording, and investigation-closure notifications.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 June 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.8
Position
Operational and clinical partners are best placed to respond to relevant concerns and reassess local risk, communication and escalation processes.
Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Specific issues concerning police ways of working are for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, College of Policing and West Midlands Police to address.
Stated by Home OfficeRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Missing Persons is outside Right Care Right Person, so existing police procedures for police involvement should continue.
Stated by Home OfficeExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
The APCC cannot mandate its members to undertake actions in response to the identified safety concerns.
Stated by Association of Police and Crime CommissionersOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
Operational implementation of Right Care, Right Person is assigned to Chief Constables rather than Police and Crime Commissioners.
Stated by Association of Police and Crime CommissionersRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The mental health trust cannot formally record differing risk opinions because it lacks access to police systems.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
Each Chief Constable decides whether and when to implement Right Care Right Person and which elements of the national framework to adopt.
Stated by Home OfficeRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
RCRP did not apply because the case was treated as a missing person involving immediate risk requiring police response.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Essex
Concerns raised1
Unavailability of resources to identify and provide information about all unstaffed railway station attendances
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 concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Suffolk
Concerns raised1
Lack of standardised information-sharing requirements or protocols for cross-border missing-person investigations
Responses linked to these concerns
Each 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
Develop and consult forces on NPCC advice for requesting missing-person enquiries in another force and transferring investigations.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 February 2023.
Action
Update the National Transfer form to capture requests for enquiries in another force, including direct telephone or video communication of risk and urgency.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 February 2023.
Cumbria
Concerns raised1
Failure of the informal approach to ensure passage of safety-critical information to individual police forces
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 An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Establish the reorganised NPCC Fleet governance and delivery structure, including strategic and tactical groups.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 January 2023.
Action
Issue NPCC Fleet direction and guidance to every NPCC police force and organisation.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 January 2023.
Surrey
Concerns raised1
Lack of requirements for direct discussion between police forces during investigation tasking and transfers
Responses linked to these concerns
Each 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
Initiate a Task and Finishing Group focused on cross-border missing-person investigations and investigation transfers.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 September 2022.
Action
Develop and circulate draft NPCC advice on requesting missing-person enquiries in another force and transferring investigations for comment before finalisation and wider circulation.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 September 2022.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Existing APP guidance and information-transfer procedures address the concerns about cross-border investigation tasking and transfers.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised1
Unreliable availability of complete real-time information to pursuit managers
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.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Existing dynamic risk assessment, trained decision-makers and ground commander primacy are retained rather than imposing more limited pursuit parameters.
Stated by West Yorkshire PoliceExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Operational policing, including spontaneous pursuits, is assigned to the Chief Constable, while the Mayor’s role is limited to accountability without fettering operational independence.
Stated by Tracy BrabinRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Dorset
Concerns raised1
Lack of access by other police forces to information held on individual police force systems
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 An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5
Action
Increase operational use of the Police National Database, including uploading safeguarding information and searching for information about vulnerable people.
Stated by Home OfficeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 November 2021.
Action
Actively consider referrals to safeguarding hubs or control-room triage services and recording relevant information on the Police National Database.
Stated by Home OfficeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 November 2021.
Action
Consider developing a safeguarding capability within the Police National Database transformation to improve operational effectiveness across safeguarding agencies.
Stated by Home OfficeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 November 2021.
Action
Use IMORCC working groups to deliver national information-sharing agreements, provide national-system and mobile-device data, and share data with partners where appropriate.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 November 2021.
Action
Continue work to enable sharing of each police force’s records-management-system data across policing.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 November 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
The exchange of information between police forces is outside NHS England’s remit for comment.
Stated by NHS EnglandOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
Each police force is responsible for its own budget, systems, staffing, and data management as its Chief Constable’s responsibility.
Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Birmingham and Solihull
Concerns raised1
Lack of a clear process for cascading relevant MARAC information to involved 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 An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5
Action
Publish a national circular to chief officers raising the concerns and recommending that forces consider local MARAC information-recording and sharing practices.
Stated by College of PolicingStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 November 2021.
Action
Centralise MARAC coordination and administration and introduce trained minute takers, MARAC coordinators and a regional lead.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 November 2021.
Action
Review links between the MARAC system and wider police systems and departments to improve information capture and sharing.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 November 2021.
Action
Maintain a regional MARAC Operating Protocol governing agency engagement and information sharing.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 November 2021.
Action
Provide ongoing regional MARAC training and require intensive training before minute takers work alone.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 November 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
West Midlands Police and other forces are responsible for local policies and practices governing MARAC information recording and dissemination.
Stated by College of PolicingRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
London City
Concerns raised1
Failure to share and consider counter-terrorism police intelligence in MAPPA management
This report raised 23 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 An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.11
Action
Operate the Joint Counter Terrorism Prison and Probation Hub to improve secure intelligence and information sharing into MAPPA.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Action
Require relevant assessments and information to be available and incorporated into risk-management planning for allocated offenders.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Action
Develop and operationalise the covert-overt bridge for reviewing, revealing and appropriately sharing sensitive intelligence with MAPPA.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Action
Escalate delayed prison Form F submissions, challenge variable quality, and seek additional analytical support for security information.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Action
Vet CT MAPPA Chairs and specialist offender-management staff, and use Joint Extremist Unit support to bring intelligence into MAPPA meetings.
Stated by West Midlands PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Action
Establish the Joint Counter Terrorism Prisons and Probation Hub to coordinate multi-agency risk management and intelligence sharing.
Stated by Home Office and The Security ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Action
Create and use the Covert/Overt Bridge to share sensitive intelligence directly with appropriately cleared MAPPA participants.
Stated by Home Office and The Security ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Action
Work with relevant case-management forums to coordinate covert and overt risk management and share proportionate intelligence with HMPPS from prison entry.
Stated by Home Office and The Security ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Action
Maintain Northern Hub intelligence support and information-sharing channels with WMCTU senior managers and CT MAPPA attendees for Staffordshire-linked nominals.
Stated by Staffordshire PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Action
Amend the MAPPA document set and meeting template to retain prison information and record intelligence, ERG conclusions, and risk factors.
Stated by Ministry of JusticeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Action
Operate the covert-overt bridge framework to identify, review, reveal, and disclose sensitive intelligence for MAPPA risk-management decisions.
Stated by Ministry of JusticeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 November 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Other bodies are taking forward substantive work on the concerns, so further College guidance or training would risk duplicating their work.
Stated by College of PolicingRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Matters concerning MAPPA intelligence sharing, security-sensitive information and police contact reporting are predominantly operational and assigned to other named bodies.
Stated by Home Office and The Security ServiceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures in police force control, incident, custody or inter-force communications where relevant risk or safety information is not reliably shared with attending personnel or partner services, including the anchor's omission of recent s136 detention information and failures to pass complete incident information to attending officers.
