Recipient

First Response Group

First report 25 Aug 2020•Latest report 25 Aug 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 0%
Concerns addressed: 0
Stated actions: 0

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 First Response Group linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

25 Aug2020
Inner North London
Concerns raised6
1. Failure to detect drug or alcohol impairment
2. Failure to detect unauthorised occupation of operational sites
3. Failure to assess drug-related risk for personnel in charge of an entire site
1. Failure to implement drug testing under the drug and alcohol policy
2. Incomplete site signing in and out records
3. Failure to provide effective security patrols
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Daniel Richard COLEMAN · 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

Daniel Richard Coleman, a construction site manager living at a demolition site, died in an accidental fire associated with his production of crystal meth. The report raised concerns that his occupation of the site and frequent illicit drug use went unnoticed, that site security was ineffective, that records of his presence were incomplete, and that the drug and alcohol policy had not led to any drug testing.

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 First Response Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to detect drug or alcohol impairment
Wider context from the report
“7. I heard evidence that not one of Mr Coleman’s Camden managers or First Response colleagues noticed that he was in any way intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. ”
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 First Response Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to detect unauthorised occupation of operational sites
Wider context from the report
“1. I heard evidence that neither Camden managers, who I was told visited the site frequently, nor First Response security officers, who were a constant presence, had noticed that Mr Coleman was living on site. Even a neighbour had seen a light on night after night in the flat where Mr Coleman had a bed, bedding, clothes hanging on a clothes rail, CD player and other personal items. 2. I also heard that Mr Coleman had previously lived on another Camden site at Bacton Low Rise, and that this too went unnoticed. ”
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 First Response Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to assess drug-related risk for personnel in charge of an entire site
Wider context from the report
“8. Evidence was given that Camden did not regard Mr Coleman’s occupation as high risk for drugs because he did not operate heavy machinery, but he was in charge of a whole site. The explosion and fire he started accidentally could have resulted in other fatalities as well as his own. ”
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 First Response Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to implement drug testing under the drug and alcohol policy
Wider context from the report
“9. I was told that a Camden drug and alcohol policy that had been in place for five months at the time of Mr Coleman’s death had not resulted in a single attempt at a drug test. ”
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 First Response Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Incomplete site signing in and out records
Wider context from the report
“6. The Camden Council signing in/out record was incomplete, often not recording Mr Coleman’s presence on site at all, and the last entry before Mr Coleman died on 14 February 2020 was dated 7 February 2020. ”
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 First Response Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide effective security patrols
Wider context from the report
“3. The evidence from the two First Response night time security officers who came to court was inconsistent and concerning. One said that he always patrolled twice an hour. The other said that each officer patrolled once every two hours. When I asked one officer what he did in between patrols (I was keen to exclude the possibility of security officers sleeping through the night), he said that it took him five minutes to write up each patrol, then he just sat and waited for the next patrol. The writing up he described was one line only, exactly the same line recorded with the time advanced by one hour as on the previous line. This would have taken a matter of seconds. One officer gave evidence that he photographed the building during every one of his patrols. It later emerged that this protocol of photographing was only introduced after 14 February 2020, though I had specifically asked about the situation before Mr Coleman’s death. I was misled. This does not paint a picture of effective security. ”
Open source report

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised6

Failure to detect drug or alcohol impairment

Failure to detect unauthorised occupation of operational sites

Failure to assess drug-related risk for personnel in charge of an entire site

Failure to implement drug testing under the drug and alcohol policy

Incomplete site signing in and out records

Failure to provide effective security patrols