Recipient

The Limes Residents Association Limited

First report 8 Oct 2020•Latest report 8 Oct 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Company limited by guarantee. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 3
Stated actions: 4

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

4stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from The Limes Residents Association Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

8 Oct2020
Suffolk
Concerns raised4
1. Failure to obtain consent for disclosure of safeguarding information to other agencies
2. Unclear central point of contact for investigative agencies and care homes
3. Lack of a system for sharing safeguarding information with care homes
1. Information-sharing arrangements failing when a person is not admitted from a registered facility
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Contact receiving care homes immediately when residents consider residential care and share all available information by telephone and follow-up letter.
  Stated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  GP confidentiality means the suitability information received about prospective residents is very limited.
  Unable to act
AI-generated summary

May Adalaid Miller · 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

May Adalaid Miller, aged 95, was attacked by another resident while asleep at Beech House Residential Care Home on 9 February 2020 and died from natural causes precipitated by the assault. The report raised concerns about the lack of safeguarding information sharing between agencies and care facilities, including the absence of a system to share information about the other resident’s risk factors.

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 The Limes Residents Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to obtain consent for disclosure of safeguarding information to other agencies
Wider context from the report
“In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of ████████. At no time was the family of Mr ████████ asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency. It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes. It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr ████████’s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible. Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller. ”
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 The Limes Residents Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unclear central point of contact for investigative agencies and care homes
Wider context from the report
“In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of ████████. At no time was the family of Mr ████████ asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency. It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes. It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr ████████’s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible. Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller. ”
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 The Limes Residents Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a system for sharing safeguarding information with care homes
Wider context from the report
“In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of ████████. At no time was the family of Mr ████████ asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency. It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes. It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr ████████’s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible. Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller. ”
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 The Limes Residents Association Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Information-sharing arrangements failing when a person is not admitted from a registered facility
Wider context from the report
“In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of ████████. At no time was the family of Mr ████████ asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency. It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes. It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr ████████’s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible. Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller. ”
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
Contact receiving care homes immediately when residents consider residential care and share all available information by telephone and follow-up letter.

Verbatim wording from the response
“On hearing that a resident is considering a move into residential care, contact will be made immediately with the receiving care home and all information will be shared. This would initially be by phone (warden) and would always be followed up in writing (manager)”

Source location
2020-0201-Response-from-the-Limes-Residence-Association_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 1 December 2020
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
GP confidentiality means the suitability information received about prospective residents is very limited.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Prospective residents are interviewed by the warden and the manager. A letter of suitability is always obtained from the G.P. but they seemed to be bound by confidentiality and the information is received is very limited.”

Source location
2020-0201-Response-from-the-Limes-Residence-Association_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 1 December 2020
Open published response

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised4

Failure to obtain consent for disclosure of safeguarding information to other agencies

Unclear central point of contact for investigative agencies and care homes

Lack of a system for sharing safeguarding information with care homes

Information-sharing arrangements failing when a person is not admitted from a registered facility

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 1