Recipient

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

Pin Request correction

First report 28 May 2025•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
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

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
1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Teesside and Hartlepool

    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 Redcar and Cleveland 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 Redcar and Cleveland 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 to relevant Adult Social Care staff and communicate the concerns identified through the inquest.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Council will take this opportunity to recirculate the Section 136 Policy to relevant staff within Adult Social Care in Redcar & Cleveland Adult Social Care and to make them aware of the concerns identified through Mr Bradley’s inquest. We will commence this process immediately.”

    Source location

    Response from Redcar Borough Council
    Page 1 · 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

    A Crisis Café would not have been appropriate for an intoxicated, suicidal person requiring mental health assessment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following that discussion there was an agreed view 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 Crisis Assessment Suite at Roseberry Park which is designated as a place of safety for Police to use 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 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 Redcar Borough Council
    Page 1 · 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 existing Crisis Assessment Suite remains the appropriate place of safety for intoxicated individuals requiring mental health assessment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following that discussion there was an agreed view 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 Crisis Assessment Suite at Roseberry Park which is designated as a place of safety for Police to use 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 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 Redcar Borough Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 30 May 2025

    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
100%
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