PFD report

William THOMPSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Apr 2015•Inner North London

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised2

  1. Lack of a smoke detection system in the bedroom
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide smoke alarms in occupied accommodationPart of recurring concern: Inadequate fire detection and emergency notification for vulnerable people in housing
  2. Failure of social workers to consider bedroom smoke detection for particularly high-risk service users
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of a smoke detection system in the bedroom

Wider context from the report

“The evidence I heard at inquest was that, whilst smoke and heat detectors were installed in Mr Thompson’s hall and kitchen, there was no smoke detection system in his bedroom. He was known to be at significantly raised fire risk because of his smoking, drinking and immobility (he used a Zimmer frame). London Fire Brigade had been called to his home more than once in the past. However, his social workers never addressed their minds to the question of whether there was a smoke detector in his bedroom and, if not, whether that might be useful. This seems to be an area that would benefit from exploration for particularly high risk service users. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide smoke alarms in occupied accommodation; Inadequate fire detection and emergency notification for vulnerable people in housing.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure of social workers to consider bedroom smoke detection for particularly high-risk service users

Wider context from the report

“The evidence I heard at inquest was that, whilst smoke and heat detectors were installed in Mr Thompson’s hall and kitchen, there was no smoke detection system in his bedroom. He was known to be at significantly raised fire risk because of his smoking, drinking and immobility (he used a Zimmer frame). London Fire Brigade had been called to his home more than once in the past. However, his social workers never addressed their minds to the question of whether there was a smoke detector in his bedroom and, if not, whether that might be useful. This seems to be an area that would benefit from exploration for particularly high risk service users. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Commission a Safeguarding Adults Review producing recommendations to improve partner practice and procedures.

    Stated by London Borough of HackneyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 April 2016.

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

Commission a Safeguarding Adults Review producing recommendations to improve partner practice and procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Measures taken by the Council to seek to prevent future deaths in this manner include the City & Hackney Safeguarding Adults Board commissioning a Safeguarding Adults Review, under the provisions of the Care Act 2014, which has twenty six recommendations for improving practice and procedures across all of the partners and agencies involved with this case. Other measures have also been implemented, some in relation specifically to practice in the Council and others with partners to prevent as far as is possible further deaths in similar situations to that of Mr Thompson. These are highlighted in the Report and Action Plan attached with this letter as Appendices 1 and 2.”

Source location

William-Thompson-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 30 April 2016

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026