PFD report

Name not published · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Jan 2024•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
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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to request an appropriately extended height ladder appliance at the outset of incidents involving a person on a roof
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable London Fire Brigade emergency response
  2. Delays in LFB attendance at incidents involving a person on a roof
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable London Fire Brigade emergency response
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 request an appropriately extended height ladder appliance at the outset of incidents involving a person on a roof

Wider context from the report

“1. ████████ rang police at 4.33pm, exactly one hour before he actually jumped off the roof. Police attended immediately and sought firefighter assistance immediately. However, they reported to me at inquest that there was some delay in the attendance of LFB. 2. Upon attendance, firefighters recognised that their ladders would not reach the roof of the flats and so called for an extended height ladder appliance. This had to travel from further afield and ████████ became more agitated during the wait. It had not arrived at 5.33pm when he jumped. The police were especially concerned that the extended height ladder appliance had not been requested from the outset, given that the call was in respect of a person on the roof of a block of flats. I did not take evidence from any firefighters at inquest, and so I appreciate that there may be elements of which I am unaware. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable London Fire Brigade emergency response.

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

Delays in LFB attendance at incidents involving a person on a roof

Wider context from the report

“1. ████████ rang police at 4.33pm, exactly one hour before he actually jumped off the roof. Police attended immediately and sought firefighter assistance immediately. However, they reported to me at inquest that there was some delay in the attendance of LFB. 2. Upon attendance, firefighters recognised that their ladders would not reach the roof of the flats and so called for an extended height ladder appliance. This had to travel from further afield and ████████ became more agitated during the wait. It had not arrived at 5.33pm when he jumped. The police were especially concerned that the extended height ladder appliance had not been requested from the outset, given that the call was in respect of a person on the roof of a block of flats. I did not take evidence from any firefighters at inquest, and so I appreciate that there may be elements of which I am unaware. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable London Fire Brigade emergency response.

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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Information from involved personnel appears inconsistent with the actions described in the coroner’s report.

    Stated by London Fire BrigadeDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Information from involved personnel appears inconsistent with the actions described in the coroner’s report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At this juncture, the information obtained from LFB personnel involved in the incident, appears incongruous with the actions noted in your report.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 25 January 2024

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