Recipient

British Telecommunications Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 25 Sep 2019•Latest report 25 Sep 2019

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. 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 British Telecommunications Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Hampshire

    AI-generated summary

    William James Moody · 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

    William James Moody, aged 85, intentionally entered the River Itchen from the banks of his home on 19 April 2019 and could not be revived after being taken to Southampton General Hospital. The report raises concerns that Hampshire’s 999 call-handling system may cause delays, missed triage opportunities and inadequate information-sharing between emergency services during mental health crises involving suicidal ideation.

    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 British Telecommunications Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of 999 call triage to quickly and effectively identify the appropriate emergency response agency

    Wider context from the report

    “At Mr Moody’s Inquest I heard that his family (who were present throughout events as his daughter and son-in-law on the Estate in which Mr and Mrs Moody had a cottage) initially called 999 and asked for the Police to attend. The 999 call-taker triaged the call as requiring the attendance of Ambulance Service and deemed this to be a matter that the Police would not attend. This resulted in the family having to redial 999 and ask for an alternative service; during which some level of screening questions were repeated. This caused delay in the family reaching an appropriate service to attend. I heard evidence from the Mental Health Lead for Hampshire Constabulary who explained that as the incident on the 19th April 2019 was occurring in the person’s home and, as such the Police have no power to intervene where a person is in their own home and in mental health crisis and/or threatening to harm themselves. The situation on the 19th of April was distinguished from that which had happened the day before, on the 18th April, as the incident on the 18th had occurred in a public place and so, in that case, the police had a duty to attend. I heard further evidence that there is a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between Hampshire Police and the South Central Ambulance Service as to who is the primary response agency for persons making threats of suicidal ideation. Ultimately, the family were confused as to where help would come from and the call-handler will not transfer the call to a particular route/service unless the caller makes the decision as to which service they need. Despite there being a MOU between the agencies this does not appear to be something that the general public is aware of, and the task of making the general public aware of this is likely to be insurmountable and therefore it remains entirely foreseeable that future delays could occur because callers are unaware of which emergency service is the correct one to request in a situation where a person is suffering a mental health crisis episode and/or expressing suicidal ideation within the boundaries of their home. I heard further evidence regarding the existence of a different triage system, that operates in at least one area/jurisdiction of the country, but this only applies when a caller dials the 111 service; callers are given an option of accessing “Mental Health” services and this allows calls to be triaged through to an appropriately trained team/call-handler who can ask a set of wider diagnostic questions to understand and establish which agency, on the particular facts, should be the primary response service to that individual. In the situation of Mr Moody it transpired that it was actually a mixed response that was required; both the Police and Ambulance services. I am concerned that the current system of dealing with 999 calls in Hampshire gives rise to the potential for opportunities to be missed to triage the emergency call quickly and effectively, and to share information between agencies without the need to repeat the screening approach, and these factors may result in further deaths in the future. ”
    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 British Telecommunications Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to share information between emergency agencies without repeating caller screening

    Wider context from the report

    “At Mr Moody’s Inquest I heard that his family (who were present throughout events as his daughter and son-in-law on the Estate in which Mr and Mrs Moody had a cottage) initially called 999 and asked for the Police to attend. The 999 call-taker triaged the call as requiring the attendance of Ambulance Service and deemed this to be a matter that the Police would not attend. This resulted in the family having to redial 999 and ask for an alternative service; during which some level of screening questions were repeated. This caused delay in the family reaching an appropriate service to attend. I heard evidence from the Mental Health Lead for Hampshire Constabulary who explained that as the incident on the 19th April 2019 was occurring in the person’s home and, as such the Police have no power to intervene where a person is in their own home and in mental health crisis and/or threatening to harm themselves. The situation on the 19th of April was distinguished from that which had happened the day before, on the 18th April, as the incident on the 18th had occurred in a public place and so, in that case, the police had a duty to attend. I heard further evidence that there is a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between Hampshire Police and the South Central Ambulance Service as to who is the primary response agency for persons making threats of suicidal ideation. Ultimately, the family were confused as to where help would come from and the call-handler will not transfer the call to a particular route/service unless the caller makes the decision as to which service they need. Despite there being a MOU between the agencies this does not appear to be something that the general public is aware of, and the task of making the general public aware of this is likely to be insurmountable and therefore it remains entirely foreseeable that future delays could occur because callers are unaware of which emergency service is the correct one to request in a situation where a person is suffering a mental health crisis episode and/or expressing suicidal ideation within the boundaries of their home. I heard further evidence regarding the existence of a different triage system, that operates in at least one area/jurisdiction of the country, but this only applies when a caller dials the 111 service; callers are given an option of accessing “Mental Health” services and this allows calls to be triaged through to an appropriately trained team/call-handler who can ask a set of wider diagnostic questions to understand and establish which agency, on the particular facts, should be the primary response service to that individual. In the situation of Mr Moody it transpired that it was actually a mixed response that was required; both the Police and Ambulance services. I am concerned that the current system of dealing with 999 calls in Hampshire gives rise to the potential for opportunities to be missed to triage the emergency call quickly and effectively, and to share information between agencies without the need to repeat the screening approach, and these factors may result in further deaths in the future. ”
    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