Recipient

Student Roost

Pin Request correction

First report 17 May 2024•Latest report 17 May 2024

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · 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 Student Roost linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Leicester City and South Leicestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Lily Precious JAHANY · 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

    Lily Precious Jahany was an 18-year-old medical student with a complex mental health history who died after taking increased doses of medication and suspending herself by a ligature in her student accommodation. The report identified concerns about the lack of first-aid training among student accommodation staff and failures to obtain and share relevant mental-health risk information, including from private clinicians.

    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 Student Roost; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the Crisis Team procedure to require obtaining relevant risk information from other agencies at assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) I have spent a lot of time in this inquest investigating the information which was known about Lily, about her mental health and who had access to what information in the context of assessing her risk. In September of 2023, Miss Evans, Assistant Coroner sitting within the Rutland and North Leicestershire jurisdiction heard an inquest concerning a student at Loughborough University. Similar to Lily’s case he was under the care of a private psychiatrist elsewhere in the country where he had lived prior to attending university. As a result of concerns in that case (his death occurring 1 year before Lily’) around lack of contact by the Crisis Team at the time of assessment or otherwise with the private psychiatrist, the Coroner wrote to the Leicestershire Partnership Trust to share her concerns. The Trust referenced the Crisis Team Standard Operating procedure in the inquest in September 2023, the Coroner was concerned about the level of awareness that staff members had of any expectation required of them set within that procedure to seek information from other agencies. I now have sight of the Crisis Team Standard Operating Procedure. It sets out the keyworker responsibilities. The section is drafted presupposing that patients are receiving care and treatment from the Crisis Team and only at that point does the responsibility for seeking relevant information from other agencies kick in. Furthermore the emphasis upon that requirement is limited to one line which reads ‘responsibility for referrals and liaising with other agencies involved’. That is anything but clear as to any expectation upon staff to ensure they have at their disposal all of the relevant risk information at the time of making that assessment; nor does it in my view set out any expectation upon staff to proactively make contact with treating clinicians in the private sector to gain information. It would not capture situations such as Lily’s, who was discharged from the Crisis Team after an 1 hour assessment and therefore was not under their care and treatment, having found a failure to obtain all relevant information pertinent to her risk in assessing that risk. ”
    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 Student Roost; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of first aid training for accommodation staff

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Lily resided at student accommodation provided by Student Roost. They describe themselves on their website as ‘a student accommodation provider who puts your wellbeing first. Our aim is to provide the very best experience for you to make the most of student living.’ Since they were established in 2017, Student Roost has grown to offer 50+ properties across the UK. Student Roost run a 24/7 service including a Night Owl Service which is an excellent idea and provides a 24 hour service to help students with everything from loosing their keys, broken taps, but also their wellbeing. During the course of hearing evidence, it is evident that all of Lily’s extreme acts of self-harm took place at her student accommodation. She took at least 3 overdoses and also carried out 2 acts of ligating which she had to be either untied or cut down from. One of those I heard required CPR. I am therefore surprised to learn that no staff (certainly in the 6 properties offering accommodation within Leicester) had first aid training and that it isn’t mandatory, such that no staff are trained by Student Roost in first aid. It transpires therefore that any immediate first aid provided to Lily was provided by those who fortuitously had that training from other organisations before they joined Student Roost. In the context of this case but also wider than that, members of the accommodation staff could potentially be the first people at the scene of a situation requiring first aid and then emergency services; where death may occur the fact therefore that they receive no training concerns me. ”
    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