Recipient

South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service

First report 14 Mar 2017•Latest report 14 Mar 2017

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Local government · Fire and rescue service. 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 South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. South Yorkshire (Eastern)

    AI-generated summary

    Jack Owen Sheldon · 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

    Jack Owen Sheldon died in a shed fire after petrol vapours from paint stripping reached a candle flame on 27 October 2016. Concerns included the handling and prioritisation of multiple emergency calls, staff communication and training, appliance mobilisation protocols, and systems for checking appliance availability and location.

    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 South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of staff training on systems for checking appliance availability before mobilisation

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) Need for training of staff to ensure they have full knowledge of the systems in place to check availability of appliances prior to mobilisation. ”
    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 South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of effective staff training on the importance of verbal communication

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Lack of effective training of staff with regard to the importance of verbal communication ”
    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 South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of effective prioritisation of appliances

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Lack of an effective system for management of multiple calls being received regarding the same incident and prioritisation of appliances. ”
    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 South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of effective protocols for mobilisation of appropriate appliances

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) Lack of effective protocols for mobilisation of appropriate appliances and associated training of staff ”
    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 South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the system to support practical switching between screens to check appliance availability and location during emergency situations

    Wider context from the report

    “(5) An overview of the system generally with regard to the practicality of operators switching between screens to check appliances and their availability and location when already dealing with emergency situations. ”
    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 South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of associated staff training for mobilisation of appropriate appliances

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) Lack of effective protocols for mobilisation of appropriate appliances and associated training of staff ”
    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 South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of an effective system for managing multiple calls regarding the same incident

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Lack of an effective system for management of multiple calls being received regarding the same incident and prioritisation of appliances. ”
    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