Recipient

London Telecare Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 4 Oct 2022•Latest report 4 Oct 2022

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 London Telecare Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Reginald Cauthery · 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

    Reginald Cauthery was a frail man with limited mobility who lived alone and died in hospital after sustaining extensive burns in a smouldering fire at his flat. The report raised concerns that his telecare service was not reviewed despite his increased fire risk and deteriorating mobility, and that his smoke alarms were not connected to the telecare system, delaying contact with the Fire Brigade.

    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 London Telecare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to review telecare services in light of increased fire risk and deteriorating mobility

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) There was no review of the telecare service provided to Mr Cauthery despite the agencies working with him being aware of his increased fire risk and deteriorating mobility. ”
    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 London Telecare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to answer telecare fire calls as a priority

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) If Mr Cauthery’s smoke alarm had been connected to his telecare system, the call would have been answered as a priority. In addition, the call handler would not have spent several minutes seeking confirmation that the smoke alarm was going off before making a 999 call. ”
    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 London Telecare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Dependence on other people recognising smoke alarms and calling the Fire Brigade for urgent fire assistance

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The ability of frail and vulnerable people to get urgent help in a fire situation will often depend upon other people recognising that a smoke alarm has triggered and calling the Fire Brigade. This raises particular problems if the person lives alone and their smoke alarm is not connected to their telecare system. ”
    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 London Telecare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Smoke alarms not connected to telecare systems

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The ability of frail and vulnerable people to get urgent help in a fire situation will often depend upon other people recognising that a smoke alarm has triggered and calling the Fire Brigade. This raises particular problems if the person lives alone and their smoke alarm is not connected to their telecare system. ”
    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 London Telecare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in calling 999 while seeking confirmation of smoke alarm activation

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) If Mr Cauthery’s smoke alarm had been connected to his telecare system, the call would have been answered as a priority. In addition, the call handler would not have spent several minutes seeking confirmation that the smoke alarm was going off before making a 999 call. ”
    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