Recipient

The Unite Group PLCIncludes reports addressed to a minister or senior office-holder acting for this organisation.

Pin Request correction

First report 20 Jan 2025•Latest report 20 Jan 2025

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Public 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
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 The Unite Group PLC linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to: Chief Executive Officer The Unite Group plc.

    Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Student A · 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

    Student A was found unresponsive in his student accommodation on 28 July 2024 and paramedics verified his death shortly thereafter; the medical cause was asphyxiation and the inquest conclusion was suicide. The principal concerns were delays in carrying out the welfare check and calling emergency services, limited assessment of Student A’s condition, failure to provide basic assistance or first aid, and possible inadequacy or ineffectiveness of staff training and procedures.

    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 Unite Group PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to render basic assistance or first aid to an unresponsive student

    Wider context from the report

    “2. When attending Student A’s room at about 10:50 on 28 July 2024, the member of staff knocked repeatedly on the door and asked for Student A to come to the door. The staff member then used their staff pass to open the door, on account of getting no response. In their statement, the staff member sets out that they remained in the doorway and could see Student A’s legs (from the knees down) on the bed within the room. The statement continues, ‘I called out to the student and stated that it was reception and asked if they were okay. At this time I was scared so I closed the door and went to the stairwell.’ The staff member spoke to the ECC and explained the circumstances to them and the ECC advised the staff member to call an ambulance ‘and to also get someone from one of the other buildings that is run by the university.’ Following the call with the ECC, the staff member sent a text message to their ‘general manager’ explaining the situation and requesting that a receptionist from another building be sent to assist. The staff member’s statement then says, ‘At approximately 1134 I called my manager and whilst on the phone returned to the room and knocked on the door repeatedly. I shouted out and knocked twice. The student did not answer the door.’ The staff member then returned to reception and telephoned for a colleague in another building to come and assist. Assistance from a colleague arrived at approximately 12 noon. Both members of staff then made their way to Student A’s room where, upon entering they found Student A unresponsive on his bed in the manner already described at section 4 of this report. As a result, the staff left the room, returned to reception and ‘called our managers and emergency services and we waited for their arrival.’ The concerns here are numerous: • It was obvious to staff that Student A was, at the very least, unresponsive / difficult to rouse at about 10:50, which on any view would be regarded as a serious / emergency situation. However, it appears that no positive or definitive action was taken to assist for over an hour. • The ECC advised the staff member to call an ambulance at about 10:50, yet this was not done until approximately 12 noon. • The staff member who first checked on Student A at 10:50, went no further than threshold (seeing no more than his legs) and therefore did little, if anything, to satisfy themselves about the true welfare status of Student A. • The staff members who attended Student A’s room at approximately 12 noon, did not attempt to render basic assistance or first aid to Student A. • In the particular circumstances of Student A’s case, he was highly likely to have been deceased for hours prior to his death being verified by paramedics at 12:27. However, that fact was not known to staff at the material time and, therefore, they would have been expected to act in accordance with any protocols or policy in place at that time. Given these matters, I am concerned that there may be a lack of appropriate training in place for staff or, if there is such training in place, that it may not be effective. Nothing in the evidence available to me has suggested that the future risks posed by my concerns have been addressed. ”
    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 Unite Group PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in actioning welfare checks and physically attending rooms

    Wider context from the report

    “1. On 28 July 2024, the request for a welfare check was received by staff at Somerset Court, from the Emergency Control Centre (the ECC) for Unite Students, at approximately 07:00. The basis of the request was that Student A’s mother had been unable to contact her son. The member of staff advised the ECC that they would try to ‘call the student and if he did not answer I would then go to his room.’ At approximately 10:15, the staff member called Student A’s mobile telephone three times, ‘but it did not ring it only beeped.’ At approximately 10:50, the staff member went upstairs to Student A’s room and received a call from the ECC but ‘ignored the call’ to go to Student A’s room. While at the material time there was no way of knowing whether this was an emergency or not, the concern here is that it nevertheless took hours for the request for a welfare check to be actioned in any way. Further, on getting no response from attempts at contact by telephone, there was further delay in physically attending Student A’s room. ”
    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 Unite Group PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to adequately assess a student’s welfare after gaining room access

    Wider context from the report

    “2. When attending Student A’s room at about 10:50 on 28 July 2024, the member of staff knocked repeatedly on the door and asked for Student A to come to the door. The staff member then used their staff pass to open the door, on account of getting no response. In their statement, the staff member sets out that they remained in the doorway and could see Student A’s legs (from the knees down) on the bed within the room. The statement continues, ‘I called out to the student and stated that it was reception and asked if they were okay. At this time I was scared so I closed the door and went to the stairwell.’ The staff member spoke to the ECC and explained the circumstances to them and the ECC advised the staff member to call an ambulance ‘and to also get someone from one of the other buildings that is run by the university.’ Following the call with the ECC, the staff member sent a text message to their ‘general manager’ explaining the situation and requesting that a receptionist from another building be sent to assist. The staff member’s statement then says, ‘At approximately 1134 I called my manager and whilst on the phone returned to the room and knocked on the door repeatedly. I shouted out and knocked twice. The student did not answer the door.’ The staff member then returned to reception and telephoned for a colleague in another building to come and assist. Assistance from a colleague arrived at approximately 12 noon. Both members of staff then made their way to Student A’s room where, upon entering they found Student A unresponsive on his bed in the manner already described at section 4 of this report. As a result, the staff left the room, returned to reception and ‘called our managers and emergency services and we waited for their arrival.’ The concerns here are numerous: • It was obvious to staff that Student A was, at the very least, unresponsive / difficult to rouse at about 10:50, which on any view would be regarded as a serious / emergency situation. However, it appears that no positive or definitive action was taken to assist for over an hour. • The ECC advised the staff member to call an ambulance at about 10:50, yet this was not done until approximately 12 noon. • The staff member who first checked on Student A at 10:50, went no further than threshold (seeing no more than his legs) and therefore did little, if anything, to satisfy themselves about the true welfare status of Student A. • The staff members who attended Student A’s room at approximately 12 noon, did not attempt to render basic assistance or first aid to Student A. • In the particular circumstances of Student A’s case, he was highly likely to have been deceased for hours prior to his death being verified by paramedics at 12:27. However, that fact was not known to staff at the material time and, therefore, they would have been expected to act in accordance with any protocols or policy in place at that time. Given these matters, I am concerned that there may be a lack of appropriate training in place for staff or, if there is such training in place, that it may not be effective. Nothing in the evidence available to me has suggested that the future risks posed by my concerns have been addressed. ”
    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 Unite Group PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in escalating and responding to an apparent emergency

    Wider context from the report

    “2. When attending Student A’s room at about 10:50 on 28 July 2024, the member of staff knocked repeatedly on the door and asked for Student A to come to the door. The staff member then used their staff pass to open the door, on account of getting no response. In their statement, the staff member sets out that they remained in the doorway and could see Student A’s legs (from the knees down) on the bed within the room. The statement continues, ‘I called out to the student and stated that it was reception and asked if they were okay. At this time I was scared so I closed the door and went to the stairwell.’ The staff member spoke to the ECC and explained the circumstances to them and the ECC advised the staff member to call an ambulance ‘and to also get someone from one of the other buildings that is run by the university.’ Following the call with the ECC, the staff member sent a text message to their ‘general manager’ explaining the situation and requesting that a receptionist from another building be sent to assist. The staff member’s statement then says, ‘At approximately 1134 I called my manager and whilst on the phone returned to the room and knocked on the door repeatedly. I shouted out and knocked twice. The student did not answer the door.’ The staff member then returned to reception and telephoned for a colleague in another building to come and assist. Assistance from a colleague arrived at approximately 12 noon. Both members of staff then made their way to Student A’s room where, upon entering they found Student A unresponsive on his bed in the manner already described at section 4 of this report. As a result, the staff left the room, returned to reception and ‘called our managers and emergency services and we waited for their arrival.’ The concerns here are numerous: • It was obvious to staff that Student A was, at the very least, unresponsive / difficult to rouse at about 10:50, which on any view would be regarded as a serious / emergency situation. However, it appears that no positive or definitive action was taken to assist for over an hour. • The ECC advised the staff member to call an ambulance at about 10:50, yet this was not done until approximately 12 noon. • The staff member who first checked on Student A at 10:50, went no further than threshold (seeing no more than his legs) and therefore did little, if anything, to satisfy themselves about the true welfare status of Student A. • The staff members who attended Student A’s room at approximately 12 noon, did not attempt to render basic assistance or first aid to Student A. • In the particular circumstances of Student A’s case, he was highly likely to have been deceased for hours prior to his death being verified by paramedics at 12:27. However, that fact was not known to staff at the material time and, therefore, they would have been expected to act in accordance with any protocols or policy in place at that time. Given these matters, I am concerned that there may be a lack of appropriate training in place for staff or, if there is such training in place, that it may not be effective. Nothing in the evidence available to me has suggested that the future risks posed by my concerns have been addressed. ”
    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