Recipient

Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children Partnership

Pin Request correction

First report 2 Oct 2014•Latest report 2 Oct 2014

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 Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children Partnership linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to Leicestershire Local Safeguarding Board, now represented here by Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children Partnership.

    Rutland and North Leicestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Lexi Branson · 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

    Lexi Branson, aged 4¾ years, died after a dog attacked her in the living room of her home, causing extensive neck and facial injuries and preventing breathing. The report identified concerns about the absence of national or local standards for re-homing stray dogs, assessing dogs and applicants, and independently verifying kennel policies and their implementation.

    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 Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of standards and objectively assessed qualifications for assessing stray dogs’ suitability for re-homing

    Wider context from the report

    “The following concerns became clear as a result of the evidence which I heard: (1) There are no national or local standards by which any policy for the re-homing of stray dogs is to be judged; (2) There are no national or local standards for the assessment of the suitability of stray dogs for re-homing and, at present, no requirement for any objectively-assessed qualifications which are required to be obtained by those making any assessments; (3) There are no national or local standards for assessing the suitability and home circumstances of potential applicants applying to re-home a dog. (4) There is no independent verification of the policies which kennels may have for the re-homing of dogs nor of their implementation. ”
    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 Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of standards for assessing potential applicants’ suitability and home circumstances when re-homing a dog

    Wider context from the report

    “The following concerns became clear as a result of the evidence which I heard: (1) There are no national or local standards by which any policy for the re-homing of stray dogs is to be judged; (2) There are no national or local standards for the assessment of the suitability of stray dogs for re-homing and, at present, no requirement for any objectively-assessed qualifications which are required to be obtained by those making any assessments; (3) There are no national or local standards for assessing the suitability and home circumstances of potential applicants applying to re-home a dog. (4) There is no independent verification of the policies which kennels may have for the re-homing of dogs nor of their implementation. ”
    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 Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of independent verification of kennels’ dog re-homing policies and their implementation

    Wider context from the report

    “The following concerns became clear as a result of the evidence which I heard: (1) There are no national or local standards by which any policy for the re-homing of stray dogs is to be judged; (2) There are no national or local standards for the assessment of the suitability of stray dogs for re-homing and, at present, no requirement for any objectively-assessed qualifications which are required to be obtained by those making any assessments; (3) There are no national or local standards for assessing the suitability and home circumstances of potential applicants applying to re-home a dog. (4) There is no independent verification of the policies which kennels may have for the re-homing of dogs nor of their implementation. ”
    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 Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of national or local standards for judging stray dog re-homing policies

    Wider context from the report

    “The following concerns became clear as a result of the evidence which I heard: (1) There are no national or local standards by which any policy for the re-homing of stray dogs is to be judged; (2) There are no national or local standards for the assessment of the suitability of stray dogs for re-homing and, at present, no requirement for any objectively-assessed qualifications which are required to be obtained by those making any assessments; (3) There are no national or local standards for assessing the suitability and home circumstances of potential applicants applying to re-home a dog. (4) There is no independent verification of the policies which kennels may have for the re-homing of dogs nor of their implementation. ”
    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