Recipient

999/112 Liaison Committee

Pin Request correction

First report 25 Jun 2019•Latest report 25 Jun 2019

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Other public body. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from 999/112 Liaison Committee linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Robert Cobbina · 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

    Robert Cobbina entered the River Thames on 2 November 2018 and was later retrieved from the river and pronounced dead at the shore. The concerns related to emergency-call handling, including whether callers were prompted to request coastguard or other waterborne assistance and to provide riverfront location references, potentially delaying the deployment of appropriate assets.

    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. The report was sent to 999/112 Liaison Committee; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to obtain riverfront coastguard location references during emergency calls

    Wider context from the report

    “1. That neither the initial caller, nor a passer-by who continued the call with the emergency control room, were prompted to request the coastguard or other waterborne assistance despite making clear that the emergency related to a person in the river. While it is understood that each service can subsequently involve other services as required, the concern inevitably arises that there was a potentially significant delay in involving the appropriate assets to locate Mr Cobbina which could have been avoided at the point at which the call was triaged and/or . 2. That neither the initial caller, nor the passer-by were prompted to identify existing signage placed along the riverfront providing a coastguard location reference to be provided in an emergency situation to enable a swift and precise arrival on scene in the absence of a normal address reference. It is acknowledged that this may have been an isolated instance but the concern remains that callers identifying an emergency related to someone in the river may not always be sufficiently interrogated, appropriately triaged, or be served with the appropriate assets as soon as may be possible, and that in other circumstances there is a risk that death will occur unless action is taken to ensure this is not systemic. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to 999/112 Liaison Committee; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to promptly triage river emergencies and involve appropriate waterborne assets

    Wider context from the report

    “1. That neither the initial caller, nor a passer-by who continued the call with the emergency control room, were prompted to request the coastguard or other waterborne assistance despite making clear that the emergency related to a person in the river. While it is understood that each service can subsequently involve other services as required, the concern inevitably arises that there was a potentially significant delay in involving the appropriate assets to locate Mr Cobbina which could have been avoided at the point at which the call was triaged and/or . 2. That neither the initial caller, nor the passer-by were prompted to identify existing signage placed along the riverfront providing a coastguard location reference to be provided in an emergency situation to enable a swift and precise arrival on scene in the absence of a normal address reference. It is acknowledged that this may have been an isolated instance but the concern remains that callers identifying an emergency related to someone in the river may not always be sufficiently interrogated, appropriately triaged, or be served with the appropriate assets as soon as may be possible, and that in other circumstances there is a risk that death will occur unless action is taken to ensure this is not systemic. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026