PFD report

Beryl Varcoe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 May 2017•Surrey

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
1

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 raised1

  1. Failure to thoroughly range-test alarms throughout service-users’ homes
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable telecare service safety controls
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 thoroughly range-test alarms throughout service-users’ homes

Wider context from the report

“The court heard evidence from ████████, the head of Elmbridge Borough Council’s Community Alarms Service, who told the court that the service has 1,700 clients and two installation officers, who are responsible for fitting and upgrading alarms in clients’ homes. ████████ told the court that it was his expectation that the installation officers carried out thorough range testing when fitting and upgrading alarms, to check that the pendant was capable of activating the base unit from all internal and external parts of a property. The court also heard evidence from the particular installer who fitted and upgraded Mrs Varcoe’s alarm. He gave inconsistent evidence with regards to his practises in respect of range testing. However, having considered the entirety of his evidence, the court is concerned that it was his practice only to range test pendants in those parts of the service user’s home, which they used most regularly and in which they felt most vulnerable. The court was told that the installation officer who fitted Mrs Varcoe’s alarm has now retired. The court was also told that the Community Alarms Service has developed a number of new procedures, which are to be introduced imminently, with the aim of ensuring that thorough range testing is documented at the time of each alarm installation or upgrade. However, the court is concerned that a significant number of the service’s clients currently have alarms, which were fitted prior to the introduction of the new procedures and by the same installation officer who fitted Mrs Varcoe’s alarm. As such there is a risk that those service-users may have alarms which do not function throughout the entirety of their homes. Elmbridge Borough Council’s Community Alarms Service has a significant number of clients who currently have alarms, which may not have not been thoroughly range-tested and may not function throughout the entirety of the service-users’ homes. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable telecare service safety controls.

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.