PFD report

Fehim AHMET · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Dec 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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

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 raised4

  1. Lack of estate-agent guidance on action regarding particular property hazards
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety guidance for managing hazards in rented residential properties
  2. Failure to record reported tenant access to hazardous property areas
  3. Failure to transfer property-hazard information to changing tenants
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.2

  1. Action

    Reinforce new tenancy agreements with explicit prohibitions on accessing non-designated areas, including flat roofs.

    Stated by Network Agencies LtdStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 December 2024.
  2. Action

    Continue issuing formal written warnings when reports of unauthorised access are received.

    Stated by Network Agencies LtdStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 December 2024.

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

  1. Position

    The incident falls outside the enforcement powers applicable to the relevant property management or letting agent and landlord.

    Stated by National Trading StandardsOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 estate-agent guidance on action regarding particular property hazards

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard at inquest that, as industry standard, there is no requirement or even guidance regarding action to be taken by estate agents about particular property hazards, say noting on the property file to warn tenants about a flat roof that is easily accessible via a window but is not in fact safe to access. Such information is not automatically passed on when tenants change and is not necessarily enshrined in the tenancy agreement. 2. In this instance the café owner downstairs had rung the estate agent to complain about tenants from the upstairs flat being on the roof of the café and it was reported there were emails about this, but nobody from the estate agency had made a note or followed up with the tenants. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety guidance for managing hazards in rented residential properties.

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 record reported tenant access to hazardous property areas

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard at inquest that, as industry standard, there is no requirement or even guidance regarding action to be taken by estate agents about particular property hazards, say noting on the property file to warn tenants about a flat roof that is easily accessible via a window but is not in fact safe to access. Such information is not automatically passed on when tenants change and is not necessarily enshrined in the tenancy agreement. 2. In this instance the café owner downstairs had rung the estate agent to complain about tenants from the upstairs flat being on the roof of the café and it was reported there were emails about this, but nobody from the estate agency had made a note or followed up with the tenants. ”

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

Failure to transfer property-hazard information to changing tenants

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard at inquest that, as industry standard, there is no requirement or even guidance regarding action to be taken by estate agents about particular property hazards, say noting on the property file to warn tenants about a flat roof that is easily accessible via a window but is not in fact safe to access. Such information is not automatically passed on when tenants change and is not necessarily enshrined in the tenancy agreement. 2. In this instance the café owner downstairs had rung the estate agent to complain about tenants from the upstairs flat being on the roof of the café and it was reported there were emails about this, but nobody from the estate agency had made a note or followed up with the tenants. ”

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

Failure to follow up reported tenant access to hazardous property areas

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard at inquest that, as industry standard, there is no requirement or even guidance regarding action to be taken by estate agents about particular property hazards, say noting on the property file to warn tenants about a flat roof that is easily accessible via a window but is not in fact safe to access. Such information is not automatically passed on when tenants change and is not necessarily enshrined in the tenancy agreement. 2. In this instance the café owner downstairs had rung the estate agent to complain about tenants from the upstairs flat being on the roof of the café and it was reported there were emails about this, but nobody from the estate agency had made a note or followed up with the tenants. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Reinforce new tenancy agreements with explicit prohibitions on accessing non-designated areas, including flat roofs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While we are always willing to implement reasonable measures to improve tenant safety, we maintain that tenants must also exercise basic personal responsibility and adhere to the terms of their tenancy agreement. Climbing through a window that is not designed for access is an unacceptable misuse of the property. However, considering this unfortunate incident, we are taking the following steps:”

Source location

Response from Network Agencies
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 2024

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

Continue issuing formal written warnings when reports of unauthorised access are received.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While we are always willing to implement reasonable measures to improve tenant safety, we maintain that tenants must also exercise basic personal responsibility and adhere to the terms of their tenancy agreement. Climbing through a window that is not designed for access is an unacceptable misuse of the property. However, considering this unfortunate incident, we are taking the following steps:”

Source location

Response from Network Agencies
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 2024

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 incident falls outside the enforcement powers applicable to the relevant property management or letting agent and landlord.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would explain that our team’s remit is to enforce the Estate Agents Act 1979 and the Tenant Fees Act 2019.”

Source location

Response from National Trading Standards
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 2024

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

Housing, health and safety, fire, and environmental health authorities should address the relevant safety concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We would recommend that you contact the Local Authority Housing team, The Health and Safety Executive, the Fire Service and the Local Authority Environmental Health team.”

Source location

Response from National Trading Standards
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 2024

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

Letting agents’ duties generally do not extend to areas outside the property or managing tenants’ or guests’ behaviour.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Those in control of areas that are not safe to access will have duties with respect to those areas which may include preventing unauthorised access, particularly where such access is known to be taking place. In most cases a letting agent’s undertaking is unlikely to extend to areas outwith the property being let or managing the behaviour of tenants or their guests. The letting industry may however wish to consider whether it would be good practice for letting agents to pass on information about risks beyond the scope of their undertaking and issue guidance addressing this point.”

Source location

Response from HSE
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 2024

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 landlord and café owner were responsible for taking further action to prevent unauthorised access to the flat roof.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As letting agents, we are not responsible for the flat roof, which is under the control of the landlord and the commercial tenant below. The café owner as the occupier of the premises below also bears responsibility for ensuring that the roof structure remains safe and secure. Whilst we were informally made aware of previous concerns regarding individuals on the roof, we contacted former tenants each time to reinforce that the roof is not accessible and not a part of their property. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the landlord and café owner to take further action to prevent unauthorised access.”

Source location

Response from Network Agencies
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 2024

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 the flat roof lies outside the letting agents’ responsibilities because it is controlled by the landlord and commercial tenant.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As letting agents, we are not responsible for the flat roof, which is under the control of the landlord and the commercial tenant below. The café owner as the occupier of the premises below also bears responsibility for ensuring that the roof structure remains safe and secure. Whilst we were informally made aware of previous concerns regarding individuals on the roof, we contacted former tenants each time to reinforce that the roof is not accessible and not a part of their property. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the landlord and café owner to take further action to prevent unauthorised access.”

Source location

Response from Network Agencies
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 2024

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 existing tenants did not notify the agents multiple times; the tenancy began on the incident date, making such notifications impossible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our primary concern is the report’s assertion that we were notified multiple times by the café owner. I must clarify that this was not the case regarding the existing tenants. Additionally, the tenant’s contract start date was the same date as the incident, making notifications impossible.”

Source location

Response from Network Agencies
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 2024

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.1

  1. 1

    Work with Islington’s Residential Team – Public Protection Division to align tenant-safety and compliance procedures with best practices.

    Stated by Network Agencies LtdStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 December 2024.

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

  1. 1

    The window was not a balcony, fire exit or designated roof access point and required deliberate bypassing and elevated furniture to access the roof.

    Stated by Network Agencies LtdDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 Islington’s Residential Team – Public Protection Division to align tenant-safety and compliance procedures with best practices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While we are always willing to implement reasonable measures to improve tenant safety, we maintain that tenants must also exercise basic personal responsibility and adhere to the terms of their tenancy agreement. Climbing through a window that is not designed for access is an unacceptable misuse of the property. However, considering this unfortunate incident, we are taking the following steps:”

Source location

Response from Network Agencies
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 2024

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 window was not a balcony, fire exit or designated roof access point and required deliberate bypassing and elevated furniture to access the roof.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We wish to clarify that the window in question is not a balcony, fire exit, or designated access point to the flat roof. It is fitted with a child safety restricting mechanism, which would have had to be deliberately bypassed for anyone to climb through it. Additionally, due to the height and positioning of the window, access to the roof would not have been possible without standing on furniture or another elevated surface, demonstrating a clear lack of common sense and regard for personal safety. Notably, this incident also occurred on the tenant’s very first day in the property, the first day of their tenancy.”

Source location

Response from Network Agencies
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 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