PFD report

Patricia Heaviside · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Jul 2025•County Durham and Darlington

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
15

Described in 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 raised4

  1. Failure to put recommended falls prevention equipment in place
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of falls risks
  2. Reluctance to provide adequate resources for falls prevention equipment
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of falls risks
  3. Failure to apply for DoLS assessments for residents lacking mental capacity
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate deprivation of liberty safeguarding for people lacking capacity
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.7

  1. Action

    Provide 12 working sensor mats and fall-detection equipment for service users.

    Stated by Williams & Spenceley LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  2. Action

    Reinforce the importance of DoLS during upcoming Care Home Strategic Provider Forum sessions.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  3. Action

    Work with the new care-home manager to submit required DoLS applications and renew expired authorisations.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    The report’s claim that sensor mats were not purchased or available is disputed as inaccurate.

    Stated by Williams & Spenceley LimitedDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 put recommended falls prevention equipment in place

Wider context from the report

“(1) Despite recommendations for falls prevention equipment being made by the Community Falls Service in August 2023, no falls prevention equipment was put in place by the time of the Deceased’s fall in fall October 2024 (2) Despite the social worker expressing concern about the lack of falls prevention equipment on 27 September 2024, no falls equipment was put in place prior to the Deceased’s fall on 4 October 2024. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of falls risks.

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

Reluctance to provide adequate resources for falls prevention equipment

Wider context from the report

“(4) On 5 August 2024 (following a fall, but before the more significant fall on 4 October 2024), the Deceased’s family were told by the Deputy Manager of Howlish Hall that the owner of Howlish Hall “probably wouldn’t want to pay for a sensor mat”. (5) I received evidence that, subsequent to the Deceased’s death, there had been a reluctance on the part of ████████ (who was believed to be the owner of Howlish Hall Care Home) to provide adequate resources for falls prevention equipment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of falls risks.

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 to apply for DoLS assessments for residents lacking mental capacity

Wider context from the report

“(6) Despite it being recognised that the Deceased lacked mental capacity to make decisions about where she lived and was unable to keep herself safe, it appears that the home did not make any application for a DoLS assessment for the Deceased. Indeed I received evidence that when a new home manager was appointed at Howlish Hall in January 2025 none of the residents were subject to a DoLS, despite a large number of the residents lacking mental capacity. ”

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

Failure to pass on Community Falls Service recommendations to family and social services

Wider context from the report

“(3) Information about the Community Falls Service recommendations was not passed on to the family, or to social services. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and families; Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care.

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

Provide 12 working sensor mats and fall-detection equipment for service users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I hereby enclose testimonies from our ████████ ████████ that the building had 12 working sensor mats to prevent falls as opposed to what stated. Moreover, the ████████ has withdrawn her first statement and stated she was mistaken and above this, we are aware that ████████ has tempered with the sensors.”

Source location

Response from Howlish Hall Care Home
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Reinforce the importance of DoLS during upcoming Care Home Strategic Provider Forum sessions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is a regular agenda item and discussion point at our Care Home Strategic Provider Forum meetings, and we will continue to reinforce its importance in upcoming forum sessions. To strengthen oversight, commissioning and safeguarding teams will work with the DoLS team to explore ways of identifying care homes that currently have no active DoLS authorisations in place or where renewals may be overdue. This will help us highlight potential gaps and ensure timely action is taken to proactively address any issues with the care home.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Work with the new care-home manager to submit required DoLS applications and renew expired authorisations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(6) Despite it being recognised that the Deceased lacked mental capacity to make decisions about where she lived and was unable to keep herself safe, it appears that the home did not make any application for a DoLS assessment for the Deceased. Indeed I received evidence that when a new home manager was appointed at Howlish Hall in January 2025 none of the residents were subject to a DoLS, despite a large number of residents lacking mental capacity.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Apply DoLS considerations to all residents moved during the care-home closure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“DoLS considerations have been applied to all residents who have transitioned to a new care home placement as part of the care home closure work for Howlish Hall.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Work with Community Falls Teams to explore strengthening communication of falls-prevention recommendations to families and social services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have reviewed this matter and can confirm that we are unable to identify any Council records indicating that the recommendations made by the CDDFT Community Falls Service on 16 August 2023, and again during June 2024, were shared with either Durham County Council or the family by CDDFT Community Falls Team or the Care Home.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Work with commissioning and safeguarding teams to explore identifying care homes without active DoLS authorisations or with overdue renewals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is a regular agenda item and discussion point at our Care Home Strategic Provider Forum meetings, and we will continue to reinforce its importance in upcoming forum sessions. To strengthen oversight, commissioning and safeguarding teams will work with the DoLS team to explore ways of identifying care homes that currently have no active DoLS authorisations in place or where renewals may be overdue. This will help us highlight potential gaps and ensure timely action is taken to proactively address any issues with the care home.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Impose registration conditions requiring the provider to safeguard residents from falls, confirm suitable equipment is in place, and update care plans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During the inspection on 2, 3, 9 and 11 July 2025 and subsequent concerns shared with us by Durham County Council, we had significant concerns in relation to falls management at the service. As stated above, we took urgent action to impose conditions on the provider’s registration. One of the conditions included a requirement for the provider to take steps to safeguard people from the risk of falls, including confirmation that appropriate equipment was in situ and service users care plans reflected the level of support and equipment they required to reduce the risks associated with falls.”

Source location

2025-0354 Response from Care Quailty Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 17 July 2025

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

The report’s claim that sensor mats were not purchased or available is disputed as inaccurate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I hereby enclose testimonies from our ████████ ████████ that the building had 12 working sensor mats to prevent falls as opposed to what stated. Moreover, the ████████ has withdrawn her first statement and stated she was mistaken and above this, we are aware that ████████ has tempered with the sensors.”

Source location

Response from Howlish Hall Care Home
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 2025

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

Existing fall sensors and an urgent calling system were considered sufficient to protect service users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I hereby enclose testimonies from our ████████ ████████ that the building had 12 working sensor mats to prevent falls as opposed to what stated. Moreover, the ████████ has withdrawn her first statement and stated she was mistaken and above this, we are aware that ████████ has tempered with the sensors.”

Source location

Response from Howlish Hall Care Home
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 2025

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

The Council was not aware of evidence that the owner specifically refused resources for falls prevention equipment, and observed equipment installed in several bedrooms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(5) I received evidence that, subsequent to the Deceased’s death, there had been a reluctance on the part of ████████ (who was believed to be the owner of Howlish Hall Care Home) to provide adequate resources for falls prevention equipment.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 17 July 2025

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

Responsibility for sourcing and implementing recommended falls prevention equipment rests with care home management, not the Council.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is important to clarify that Durham County Council was not directly informed of the recommendations made by the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (CDD​​FT) Community Falls Service. In accordance with standard protocol, such recommendations are communicated solely to the care home, which retains full responsibility for reviewing, actioning, and implementing the advised measures.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 2025

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

Sensor mats provide an early warning enabling swift responses but do not physically prevent falls.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CQC expects care providers to follow the NICE guidelines on falls management (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng249/chapter/Recommendations#interventions-to-reduce-the-risk-of-falls). We expect providers to take a multi-factorial approach to falls management which includes measures such as conducting medication reviews, encouraging the person to remain physically active and removing hazards from the environment. Whilst sensor mats are useful as an early warning system that alerts care staff to potential falls or movements to enable swift responses to prevent injuries, they do not physically prevent a person having a fall.”

Source location

2025-0354 Response from Care Quailty Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 17 July 2025

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

The provider is best placed to address whether sensor mats should have been supplied for an individual's assessed needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. On 5 August 2024 (following a fall, but before the more significant fall on 4 October 2024), the Deceased’s family were told by the Deputy Manager of Howlish Hall that the owner of Howlish Hall “probably wouldn’t want to pay for a sensor mat”.”

Source location

2025-0354 Response from Care Quailty Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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.8

  1. 1

    Operate a digital AI-powered urgent calling system for service users.

    Stated by Williams & Spenceley LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  2. 2

    Keep CQC records listing service users’ fall sensors and detecting material.

    Stated by Williams & Spenceley LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  3. 3

    Remind social work staff to follow the information-sharing protocol for communicating provider contractual concerns to commissioning staff.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  4. 4

    Conduct intensive care-home monitoring and escalate formal planning and executive strategy oversight to address ongoing care concerns.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  5. 5

    Arrange dedicated officer support for the care-home closure, reassess residents, and move them to alternative placements.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  6. 6

    Coordinate with Durham County Council to move all residents to alternative care facilities.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  7. 7

    Inspect Howlish Hall in response to concerns about its environment, staffing, training, fire safety and sustained improvement.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  8. 8

    Issue a Notice of Proposal to cancel the provider’s registration because of significant and widespread safety issues.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.

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

Operate a digital AI-powered urgent calling system for service users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report was done based on hearsay with ████████ the ████████ testimony about Owner not buying Sensors Mats, while Howlish Hall have the best known Digital AI Powered Urgent Calling System in all the County ! without checking facts, without investigating further and with careless view on the actual circumstances that will lead me to address ████████ for libel and slander, the report that was published give tailwind to very negative sentiments in Nationwide Media ,BBC and the Northern Echo, they used unauthorised Stollen photos from the home along with insult from the global public assuming howlish hall is “ killing” its service users, specially the case of the late Mrs Heaviside who lack mental capacity , that had a snowball effect to the closing of Howlish Hall Care Home.”

Source location

Response from Howlish Hall Care Home
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Keep CQC records listing service users’ fall sensors and detecting material.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Howlish Hall has always taken seriously the safety and well-being of his Service Users , we have kept on record for the CQC , a list of last Service Users before closing the home and a list showing all of them had Falling sensors and detecting material.”

Source location

Response from Howlish Hall Care Home
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Remind social work staff to follow the information-sharing protocol for communicating provider contractual concerns to commissioning staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Council has an established information sharing protocol to ensure that any concerns or issues relating to providers’ contractual obligations are appropriately communicated to”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Conduct intensive care-home monitoring and escalate formal planning and executive strategy oversight to address ongoing care concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Durham County Council’s Strategic Commissioning Team and Practice Improvement Team commenced monitoring visits within the care home in September 2024, with a total of 22 onsite monitoring visits taking place from that date until the care home closed on the 1 August 2025. During this period, Durham County Council’s formal Planning Meeting process was invoked and subsequently escalated to the Executive Strategy Meeting process to address ongoing issues. It should be noted that there have been multiple changes in care home management during the last 12 months and this lack of continuity”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Arrange dedicated officer support for the care-home closure, reassess residents, and move them to alternative placements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In July 2025, following intensive oversight as described above, Howlish Hall issued notice to the Council that the care home would close. Durham County Council arranged for a dedicated team of officers to manage the transition and closure process with the service and all residents were re-assessed and moved to alternative care home provision within 7 days.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Coordinate with Durham County Council to move all residents to alternative care facilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 24 July 2025 CQC met with representatives from Durham County Council and ████████ (provider) at Howlish Hall. During this meeting ████████ indicated his intention to serve the local authority with a 3 month notice period and stated his intention was to close the home as quickly as possible, before CQC cancelled his registration. We worked closely with local authority colleagues, and all residents were moved to other care facilities by the end of the day on Friday 1 August 2025.”

Source location

2025-0354 Response from Care Quailty Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Inspect Howlish Hall in response to concerns about its environment, staffing, training, fire safety and sustained improvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 2 July 2025 CQC began an inspection of Howlish Hall following concerns we had received about the service relating to the environment, staff training, fire safety, the departure of the registered manager and ongoing concerns from the local authority”

Source location

2025-0354 Response from Care Quailty Commission
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 2025

Open published response

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

Issue a Notice of Proposal to cancel the provider’s registration because of significant and widespread safety issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“about a lack of sustained improvements within the service. The inspection continued on 3, 9 and 11 July 2025 and found significant shortfalls at the service and identified several breaches of fundamental standards. We took urgent enforcement action in the form of imposing conditions, to immediately manage the safety of residents until suitable alternative accommodation could be found. Due to the significant and widespread issues found during the inspection, we also issued a Notice of Proposal to cancel the provider’s registration.”

Source location

2025-0354 Response from Care Quailty Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2025

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

Official responses located
3/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026