Recipient

Network Agencies Ltd

Pin Request correction

First report 11 Dec 2024•Latest report 11 Dec 2024

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
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
3

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
3

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.

100%published responses found
3stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Network Agencies Ltd 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

    Fehim AHMET · 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

    Fehim Ahmet was sitting in a café when a man fell through a skylight from the flat roof above and struck him. He died a fortnight later from his injuries; concerns included the lack of guidance for estate agents about recording and passing on hazards, and the failure to follow up reports that tenants were accessing the roof.

    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 Network Agencies Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of estate-agent guidance on action regarding particular property hazards

    Wider context from the report

    “1. I heard at inquest that, as industry standard, there is no requirement or even guidance regarding action to be taken by estate agents about particular property hazards, say noting on the property file to warn tenants about a flat roof that is easily accessible via a window but is not in fact safe to access. Such information is not automatically passed on when tenants change and is not necessarily enshrined in the tenancy agreement. 2. In this instance the café owner downstairs had rung the estate agent to complain about tenants from the upstairs flat being on the roof of the café and it was reported there were emails about this, but nobody from the estate agency had made a note or followed up with the tenants. ”
    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 Network Agencies Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to record reported tenant access to hazardous property areas

    Wider context from the report

    “1. I heard at inquest that, as industry standard, there is no requirement or even guidance regarding action to be taken by estate agents about particular property hazards, say noting on the property file to warn tenants about a flat roof that is easily accessible via a window but is not in fact safe to access. Such information is not automatically passed on when tenants change and is not necessarily enshrined in the tenancy agreement. 2. In this instance the café owner downstairs had rung the estate agent to complain about tenants from the upstairs flat being on the roof of the café and it was reported there were emails about this, but nobody from the estate agency had made a note or followed up with the tenants. ”
    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 Network Agencies Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to transfer property-hazard information to changing tenants

    Wider context from the report

    “1. I heard at inquest that, as industry standard, there is no requirement or even guidance regarding action to be taken by estate agents about particular property hazards, say noting on the property file to warn tenants about a flat roof that is easily accessible via a window but is not in fact safe to access. Such information is not automatically passed on when tenants change and is not necessarily enshrined in the tenancy agreement. 2. In this instance the café owner downstairs had rung the estate agent to complain about tenants from the upstairs flat being on the roof of the café and it was reported there were emails about this, but nobody from the estate agency had made a note or followed up with the tenants. ”
    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 Network Agencies Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to follow up reported tenant access to hazardous property areas

    Wider context from the report

    “1. I heard at inquest that, as industry standard, there is no requirement or even guidance regarding action to be taken by estate agents about particular property hazards, say noting on the property file to warn tenants about a flat roof that is easily accessible via a window but is not in fact safe to access. Such information is not automatically passed on when tenants change and is not necessarily enshrined in the tenancy agreement. 2. In this instance the café owner downstairs had rung the estate agent to complain about tenants from the upstairs flat being on the roof of the café and it was reported there were emails about this, but nobody from the estate agency had made a note or followed up with the tenants. ”
    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

    Reinforce new tenancy agreements with explicit prohibitions on accessing non-designated areas, including flat roofs.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “While we are always willing to implement reasonable measures to improve tenant safety, we maintain that tenants must also exercise basic personal responsibility and adhere to the terms of their tenancy agreement. Climbing through a window that is not designed for access is an unacceptable misuse of the property. However, considering this unfortunate incident, we are taking the following steps:”

    Source location

    Response from Network Agencies
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 December 2024

    Open published response

    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

    Continue issuing formal written warnings when reports of unauthorised access are received.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “While we are always willing to implement reasonable measures to improve tenant safety, we maintain that tenants must also exercise basic personal responsibility and adhere to the terms of their tenancy agreement. Climbing through a window that is not designed for access is an unacceptable misuse of the property. However, considering this unfortunate incident, we are taking the following steps:”

    Source location

    Response from Network Agencies
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 December 2024

    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 landlord and café owner were responsible for taking further action to prevent unauthorised access to the flat roof.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As letting agents, we are not responsible for the flat roof, which is under the control of the landlord and the commercial tenant below. The café owner as the occupier of the premises below also bears responsibility for ensuring that the roof structure remains safe and secure. Whilst we were informally made aware of previous concerns regarding individuals on the roof, we contacted former tenants each time to reinforce that the roof is not accessible and not a part of their property. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the landlord and café owner to take further action to prevent unauthorised access.”

    Source location

    Response from Network Agencies
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 December 2024

    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

    Responsibility for the flat roof lies outside the letting agents’ responsibilities because it is controlled by the landlord and commercial tenant.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As letting agents, we are not responsible for the flat roof, which is under the control of the landlord and the commercial tenant below. The café owner as the occupier of the premises below also bears responsibility for ensuring that the roof structure remains safe and secure. Whilst we were informally made aware of previous concerns regarding individuals on the roof, we contacted former tenants each time to reinforce that the roof is not accessible and not a part of their property. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the landlord and café owner to take further action to prevent unauthorised access.”

    Source location

    Response from Network Agencies
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 December 2024

    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 existing tenants did not notify the agents multiple times; the tenancy began on the incident date, making such notifications impossible.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Our primary concern is the report’s assertion that we were notified multiple times by the café owner. I must clarify that this was not the case regarding the existing tenants. Additionally, the tenant’s contract start date was the same date as the incident, making notifications impossible.”

    Source location

    Response from Network Agencies
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 December 2024

    Open published response
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

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
33%67%
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