Recipient

Hartlepool Borough Council

First report 18 Feb 2015•Latest report 28 May 2025

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Local government · English unitary authority. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 2
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 3
Stated actions: 3

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.

100%published responses found

3stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Hartlepool Borough Council linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

28 May2025
Teesside and Hartlepool
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to provide adequate safeguarding for intoxicated people before mental health assessment
2. Insufficient resources for safeguarding people with mental health illnesses whilst intoxicated
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
  Recirculate the Section 136 Policy and share the inquest concerns with relevant Adult Social Care staff.
  Stated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The Section 136 assessment suite remains the appropriate place of safety for intoxicated people without immediate physical health risks.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Mr Dean Bradley · 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

Mr Dean Bradley was found deceased by hanging in his hostel flat on 15 October 2021, after earlier suicidal behaviour and expressions of paranoid and persecutory beliefs while apparently under the influence of drugs. Concerns included whether current resources adequately safeguard people with mental health concerns while intoxicated, and failures to contact mental health services and to relay the details of his crisis to hostel staff.

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 Hartlepool Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide adequate safeguarding for intoxicated people before mental health assessment
Wider context from the report
“2) I heard evidence that a person who was suicidal, suffering with mental health concerns and was intoxicated could not be adequately safeguarded until he was sufficiently sober to allow a mental health assessment. ”
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 Hartlepool Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient resources for safeguarding people with mental health illnesses whilst intoxicated
Wider context from the report
“1) Current resources for safeguarding those with mental health illnesses whilst intoxicated may be placing people at risk. ”
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
Recirculate the Section 136 Policy and share the inquest concerns with relevant Adult Social Care staff.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I will take this opportunity to recirculate the Section 136 Policy to relevant staff within Adult Social Care in Hartlepool Borough Council, and to make them aware of the concerns identified through Mr Bradley’s inquest.”

Source location
Response from Hartlepool Council
Page 2 · response
Published 30 May 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
The Section 136 assessment suite remains the appropriate place of safety for intoxicated people without immediate physical health risks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following that discussion I can confirm that, while there is not a ‘Crisis Café’ provided within the Tees area, such a provision would not have been appropriate for an individual presenting as Mr Bradley did. The appropriate place for him to have been supported at the time of the incident in 2021 was the assessment suite at Roseberry Park which is designated as a place of safety under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act, and this remains the case at the present time. This service is provided by Tees Esk & Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust and their policy relating to Section 136 (which is available on their website and is attached for reference) clearly identifies that this provision is appropriate for an individual who is intoxicated but not presenting with immediate physical health risks.”

Source location
Response from Hartlepool Council
Page 1 · response
Published 30 May 2025
Open published response
18 Feb2015
Hartlepool
Concerns raised1
1. Serious and fatal collision hazard at the junction involving right-turning vehicles
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Speed restrictions, road layout design and potential improvement schemes are outside the council’s jurisdiction and responsibility.
  Outside remit
1. Position
  Highways England is responsible for funding, sponsoring and initiating improvements to the A19 network.
  Redirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Keri Victoria Holdsworth · 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

Keri Victoria Holdsworth died after sustaining fatal injuries in a road traffic crash at the junction of the A19 and the road from Dalton Piercy village on 13 June 2014. The report raised concern that this was the latest in several serious incidents at the junction, including three fatal incidents within the previous five years.

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 Hartlepool Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Serious and fatal collision hazard at the junction involving right-turning vehicles
Wider context from the report
“(1) This is the latest in several serious incidents at this junction, three of which have been fatal within the last five years. All of the fatal incidents have involved vehicles either turning right at this junction to join the northbound A19, or turning right from the northbound into the Dalton Piercy junction. ”
Open source report
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
Speed restrictions, road layout design and potential improvement schemes are outside the council’s jurisdiction and responsibility.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The position is that this stretch of road network falls under the jurisdiction of Highways England (formerly known as The Highways Agency).”

Source location
2015-0060-Response-by-Hartlepool-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 18 February 2015
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
Highways England is responsible for funding, sponsoring and initiating improvements to the A19 network.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I contacted Highways England (Highways Agency) upon receipt of your last 11th correspondence and asked them as lead body to respond on behalf of both ourselves and the Highways Agency, explaining the position in respect of potential studies being carried out to improve the safety of the network. All funding responsibility for improvements to the A19 network lie with Highways England and therefore deems them to be the project sponsor and instigator of any improvement scheme(s).”

Source location
2015-0060-Response-by-Hartlepool-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 18 February 2015
Open published response

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 raised2

Failure to provide adequate safeguarding for intoxicated people before mental health assessment

Insufficient resources for safeguarding people with mental health illnesses whilst intoxicated

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Serious and fatal collision hazard at the junction involving right-turning vehicles

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 1

Respondent positions 2