Recurring concern

Unreliable London Fire Brigade emergency response

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 18 Jan 2024•Latest report 30 Jan 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the London Fire Brigade emergency-response process from receipt or relay of an incident alert through mobilisation, selection of appropriate appliances, attendance and escalation when the incident requires urgent firefighter assistance.

Not included

Excludes generic police, ambulance or emergency-service communication failures where London Fire Brigade emergency response is not the material concern.
Excludes failures in clinical treatment, rescue or incident management after London Fire Brigade has responded appropriately.
Excludes general fire-service staffing or capacity concerns unless they directly impair London Fire Brigade alerting, mobilisation, attendance or deployment for an emergency incident.
Excludes routine fire-service operations and non-emergency attendance where no urgent public-safety response deficiency is identified.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 3
Date range: 2024–2025
Stated actions: 1

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.

London Fire Brigade2

City of London Corporation1

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham1

London Borough of Bexley1

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham1

London Borough of Havering1

London Borough of Lambeth1

London Borough of Lewisham1

London Borough of Newham1

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames1

London Borough of Southwark1

London Borough of Tower Hamlets1

London Borough of Wandsworth1

National Fire Chiefs Council1

Royal Borough of Greenwich1

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 Jan2025
West London
Concerns raised1
1. Delays in police alerting of the LFB and subsequent emergency response
This report raised 1 other concern. 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
  Upgrade LFB and MPS systems to exchange incident information electronically through MAIT.
  Stated by London Fire BrigadeStated in progress
Respondent positions 4
1. Position
  Configuration of electronic communication systems will be agreed locally by fire and rescue services with relevant partner agencies.
  Stated by National Fire Chiefs CouncilRedirects responsibility
1. Position
  Existing direct radio communications between emergency service control rooms provide a robust means of sharing incident information while electronic exchange develops.
  Stated by London Fire BrigadeExisting arrangements considered sufficient
2. Position
  Emergency communications between the Metropolitan Police Service and London Fire Brigade are outside the Borough’s management responsibility.
  Stated by London Borough of Barking and DagenhamOutside remit
3. Position
  Communication between emergency services is a matter for the emergency services, so no Council action is proposed.
  Stated by London Borough of HaveringRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Liam Stephen Allan · 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

Liam Stephen Allan was arrested alongside the River Thames on the evening of 26 August 2022, entered the river, and drowned. The report identified concerns about inadequate lighting and visibility of riverside buoyancy aids, and about delays in alerting the London Fire Brigade because notification was made by telephone rather than through the faster CAD-mediated system.

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
Delays in police alerting of the LFB and subsequent emergency response
Wider context from the report
“The process for alerting the LFB by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) uses a telephone to transmit information from the MPS to the LFB, rather than using a CAD-mediated system to transfer information electronically from the Police to the LFB which is faster than transmitting information by telephone. This delay means that there is a risk that future deaths could occur due to a delay in the LFB being alerted by the Police and a corresponding delay to the LFB's subsequent response to an emergency incident. ”
Source location
Liam Stephen Allan · 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
Upgrade LFB and MPS systems to exchange incident information electronically through MAIT.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In late 2022, further improvements to sharing of electronic incident records by emergency services came through the introduction of the Multi Agency Incident Transfer ['MAIT'] System. MAIT allows emergency services control rooms to share incident data electronically. LFB along with the MPS are upgrading their systems to accommodate this. However robust radio communications between control rooms are currently in place to share incident information via a secure radio network.”

Source location
Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 10 March 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
Configuration of electronic communication systems will be agreed locally by fire and rescue services with relevant partner agencies.

Verbatim wording from the response
“the consideration of configuring mobilising systems to integrate with electronic methods of communication. This will take a variety of forms within fire and rescue services and be agreed locally with their relevant partners.”

Source location
Response from National Fire Chiefs Council
Page 2 · response
Published 10 March 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
Existing direct radio communications between emergency service control rooms provide a robust means of sharing incident information while electronic exchange develops.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In late 2022, further improvements to sharing of electronic incident records by emergency services came through the introduction of the Multi Agency Incident Transfer ['MAIT'] System. MAIT allows emergency services control rooms to share incident data electronically. LFB along with the MPS are upgrading their systems to accommodate this. However robust radio communications between control rooms are currently in place to share incident information via a secure radio network.”

Source location
Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 10 March 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
Emergency communications between the Metropolitan Police Service and London Fire Brigade are outside the Borough’s management responsibility.

Verbatim wording from the response
“While our Borough does not manage emergency communications between the Metropolitan Police Service and the London Fire Brigade, we strongly support improvements in this area. We will work with the Local Resilience Forum and relevant partners to advocate for enhanced inter-agency communication, particularly in critical response scenarios.”

Source location
Response from London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Page 2 · response
Published 10 March 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
Communication between emergency services is a matter for the emergency services, so no Council action is proposed.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We consider this to be a matter for the emergency services to address. For this reason, no action by the Council is proposed.”

Source location
Response from London Borough of Havering
Page 2 · response
Published 10 March 2025
Open published response
18 Jan2024
Inner North London
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to request an appropriately extended height ladder appliance at the outset of incidents involving a person on a roof
2. Delays in LFB attendance at incidents involving a person on a roof
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.
AI-generated summary

Name not published · 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

████████ jumped from the roof of his block of flats at 5.33pm on 26 July 2023, following a delay in the attendance of the London Fire Brigade and the provision of an extended height ladder appliance. The principal concern was that the appliance may not have been requested from the outset, despite the call relating to a person on the roof of a block of flats.

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 request an appropriately extended height ladder appliance at the outset of incidents involving a person on a roof
Wider context from the report
“1. ████████ rang police at 4.33pm, exactly one hour before he actually jumped off the roof. Police attended immediately and sought firefighter assistance immediately. However, they reported to me at inquest that there was some delay in the attendance of LFB. 2. Upon attendance, firefighters recognised that their ladders would not reach the roof of the flats and so called for an extended height ladder appliance. This had to travel from further afield and ████████ became more agitated during the wait. It had not arrived at 5.33pm when he jumped. The police were especially concerned that the extended height ladder appliance had not been requested from the outset, given that the call was in respect of a person on the roof of a block of flats. I did not take evidence from any firefighters at inquest, and so I appreciate that there may be elements of which I am unaware. ”
Source location
Name not published · 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
Delays in LFB attendance at incidents involving a person on a roof
Wider context from the report
“1. ████████ rang police at 4.33pm, exactly one hour before he actually jumped off the roof. Police attended immediately and sought firefighter assistance immediately. However, they reported to me at inquest that there was some delay in the attendance of LFB. 2. Upon attendance, firefighters recognised that their ladders would not reach the roof of the flats and so called for an extended height ladder appliance. This had to travel from further afield and ████████ became more agitated during the wait. It had not arrived at 5.33pm when he jumped. The police were especially concerned that the extended height ladder appliance had not been requested from the outset, given that the call was in respect of a person on the roof of a block of flats. I did not take evidence from any firefighters at inquest, and so I appreciate that there may be elements of which I am unaware. ”
Source location
Name not published · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Delays in police alerting of the LFB and subsequent emergency response

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

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4

Concerns raised2

Failure to request an appropriately extended height ladder appliance at the outset of incidents involving a person on a roof

Delays in LFB attendance at incidents involving a person on a roof

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 4