PFD report

Enid Baber · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Dec 2019•Nottinghamshire

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Failure to routinely assess whether people with significant restrictions on liberty in their own homes are deprived of their liberty
  2. Lack of training in deprivation of liberty assessment
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate deprivation of liberty safeguarding for people lacking capacity
  3. Lack of adequate safeguards and safety attention for people potentially deprived of liberty in their own homes
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

Failure to routinely assess whether people with significant restrictions on liberty in their own homes are deprived of their liberty

Wider context from the report

“Enid Baber was not free to leave her property. This was a fact which was well known to Nottinghamshire County Council who had been involved in coordinating her package of care. She was also under a measure of supervision and control during the day. I concluded, after hearing evidence on the point, that although in my finding she was not being deprived of her liberty, this was a very finely balanced decision. I was advised that Nottinghamshire County Council has a team which deals with deprivation of liberty (‘DOL’) in community settings although the evidence I received was that the team dealing with dementia cases did not routinely or actively carry out an assessment as to whether or not persons in Mrs Baber’s situation are deprived of their liberty. They have not received specific training on this difficult assessment process. In this case, Mrs Baber’s circumstances fell only narrowly short of a deprivation of liberty and only minor changes would have resulted in a different conclusion. There was no mechanism by which the social workers working with Mrs Baber were required or prompted to consider the issue of deprivation of liberty and they had not been trained to do so. Had Mrs Baber been deprived of her liberty then she has a human right for that detention to be kept under review and I remained concerned that this particular class of persons, that is, persons who remain in their own home but who have significant restrictions on their liberty, may be unlawfully deprived of their liberty without adequate safeguards being in place and that this may potentially become unsafe by, for example, insufficient attention to the safety implications of being locked in your own home. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Lack of training in deprivation of liberty assessment

Wider context from the report

“Enid Baber was not free to leave her property. This was a fact which was well known to Nottinghamshire County Council who had been involved in coordinating her package of care. She was also under a measure of supervision and control during the day. I concluded, after hearing evidence on the point, that although in my finding she was not being deprived of her liberty, this was a very finely balanced decision. I was advised that Nottinghamshire County Council has a team which deals with deprivation of liberty (‘DOL’) in community settings although the evidence I received was that the team dealing with dementia cases did not routinely or actively carry out an assessment as to whether or not persons in Mrs Baber’s situation are deprived of their liberty. They have not received specific training on this difficult assessment process. In this case, Mrs Baber’s circumstances fell only narrowly short of a deprivation of liberty and only minor changes would have resulted in a different conclusion. There was no mechanism by which the social workers working with Mrs Baber were required or prompted to consider the issue of deprivation of liberty and they had not been trained to do so. Had Mrs Baber been deprived of her liberty then she has a human right for that detention to be kept under review and I remained concerned that this particular class of persons, that is, persons who remain in their own home but who have significant restrictions on their liberty, may be unlawfully deprived of their liberty without adequate safeguards being in place and that this may potentially become unsafe by, for example, insufficient attention to the safety implications of being locked in your own home. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate deprivation of liberty safeguarding for people lacking capacity.

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

Lack of adequate safeguards and safety attention for people potentially deprived of liberty in their own homes

Wider context from the report

“Enid Baber was not free to leave her property. This was a fact which was well known to Nottinghamshire County Council who had been involved in coordinating her package of care. She was also under a measure of supervision and control during the day. I concluded, after hearing evidence on the point, that although in my finding she was not being deprived of her liberty, this was a very finely balanced decision. I was advised that Nottinghamshire County Council has a team which deals with deprivation of liberty (‘DOL’) in community settings although the evidence I received was that the team dealing with dementia cases did not routinely or actively carry out an assessment as to whether or not persons in Mrs Baber’s situation are deprived of their liberty. They have not received specific training on this difficult assessment process. In this case, Mrs Baber’s circumstances fell only narrowly short of a deprivation of liberty and only minor changes would have resulted in a different conclusion. There was no mechanism by which the social workers working with Mrs Baber were required or prompted to consider the issue of deprivation of liberty and they had not been trained to do so. Had Mrs Baber been deprived of her liberty then she has a human right for that detention to be kept under review and I remained concerned that this particular class of persons, that is, persons who remain in their own home but who have significant restrictions on their liberty, may be unlawfully deprived of their liberty without adequate safeguards being in place and that this may potentially become unsafe by, for example, insufficient attention to the safety implications of being locked in your own home. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report
Back to top

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

Official responses located
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.