PFD report

Mr Tomas Ceida · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Mar 2023•Inner South 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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
6

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 raised6

  1. Failure to follow up non-receipt of a building application
  2. Lack of assurance that fire safety and evacuation responsibilities are competently adopted and implemented
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure staff competence in fire safety and evacuation
  3. Lack of communication with fire enforcement during site construction and events
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.3

  1. Action

    Continue community engagement and media campaigns promoting general fire safety precautions.

    Stated by London Fire BrigadeStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 March 2023.
  2. Action

    Identify and carry out planning compliance checks for repeated non-compliance and high-risk, high-footfall buildings or operations.

    Stated by Royal Borough of GreenwichStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 March 2023.
  3. Action

    Operate the Integrated Enforcement Initiative to share information and review licensed-premises activity across council services and external enforcement partners.

    Stated by Royal Borough of GreenwichStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 March 2023.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    There was no statutory or procedural duty to notify the Fire Brigade after the planning inspection.

    Stated by Royal Borough of GreenwichDisputes 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 follow up non-receipt of a building application

Wider context from the report

“• RLBG Building Control were aware of the composition of the acoustic wall compacted with hay or straw, and its fire risks and did not follow up the non-receipt of a building application after March 2013. ”

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 assurance that fire safety and evacuation responsibilities are competently adopted and implemented

Wider context from the report

“• Although steps were taken by JHS to mitigate fire risks through the subsequent management and supervision of hot works, there is no evidence of what steps are taken by JHS individuals now in the building trade in each case to ensure the responsibility for fire safety and evacuation has been competently adopted and implemented. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure staff competence in fire safety and evacuation.

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 communication with fire enforcement during site construction and events

Wider context from the report

“• LFB visited the site in 2014 and the local team attended large night club events on the site, during construction from 2016, but there was no communication with fire enforcement ”

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 notify London Fire Brigade of a material discrepancy from the planning application

Wider context from the report

“• RLBG Planning Division did not notify London Fire Brigade in 2016 when discovered that the wall was not a living wall as envisaged in the planning application. ”

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 public and future contractor awareness of fire precaution processes and duties

Wider context from the report

“• It is understood that changes in the law and duties of securing general fire precautions has changed since the fire. It is not clear that the public and future contractors are necessarily aware of the processes and duties. The coroner is concerned whether there is a lack of public awareness, which may be a risk to future deaths. This is brought to the attention of the HSE and LFB as enforcement authorities. ”

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 create or retain documentation of changes in contractor and site manager roles

Wider context from the report

“• JHS were initially documented as principal contractor and its subcontractor as site manager in 2016, but either did not create or did not retain documentation of the alleged change of role before the date of the fire, from discussions with the leaseholder of the site, who was the client. ”

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

Continue community engagement and media campaigns promoting general fire safety precautions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To meet its obligations under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, LFB has dedicated departments dealing with community and statutory fire safety matters. These teams continue to actively engage with local communities to promote fire safety awareness i.e. general fire safety precautions. The Brigade conducts fire safety campaigns in the media and will work to ensure that these continue, with the aim of raising the level of fire safety awareness in the general public.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 2 · response
Published 13 March 2023

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

Identify and carry out planning compliance checks for repeated non-compliance and high-risk, high-footfall buildings or operations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to information cascaded through the mechanisms of Integrated Enforcement , Planning Enforcement are committed to identify where compliance checks are necessary through their investigation processes. Compliance checks will be carried out where repeated non-compliance has been identified and where there is high risk buildings or operations with heavy footfall such as nightclubs or places of worship. Officers are now able to raise concerns relevant to LfB through the Integrated Enforcement initiative.”

Source location

Response from Royal Borough of Greenwich
Page 2 · response
Published 13 March 2023

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

Operate the Integrated Enforcement Initiative to share information and review licensed-premises activity across council services and external enforcement partners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The council established an Integrated Enforcement Initiative in 2018 which pulls from all services with enforcement powers, it meets weekly and shares information between internal departments within the council including Licensing , Planning , Building Control , Environmental Health and external partners including the Police and Safer Neighbourhoods Teams and LfB. This information sharing group reviews amongst other things the operational activities of licensed premises such as Studio 338 and inspections made can identify areas of concern which may not otherwise be apparent to officers with relevant powers to regularise.”

Source location

Response from Royal Borough of Greenwich
Page 2 · response
Published 13 March 2023

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

There was no statutory or procedural duty to notify the Fire Brigade after the planning inspection.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Fire Brigade was not notified following the inspection made on 25th July 2016 when it was discovered the sound wall had not been constructed in accordance with the permission granted in 2013 for a living wall with irrigation system but in fact what existed was a wall covered in plastic grass, officers were unaware of the composition as it was not visible to them. Not notifying LFB was not a failing or a disconnect in the service, there is not a statutory or procedural duty to do so.”

Source location

Response from Royal Borough of Greenwich
Page 1 · response
Published 13 March 2023

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.3

  1. 1

    Prepare to tender for a specialist contractor to develop a centralised premises risk database.

    Stated by London Fire BrigadeStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 March 2023.
  2. 2

    Circulate and publish reminders requiring fire safety officers to review premises databases before visiting premises.

    Stated by London Fire BrigadeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 March 2023.
  3. 3

    Integrate peak activity inspectors into mainstream fire safety inspection teams.

    Stated by London Fire BrigadeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 March 2023.

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

Prepare to tender for a specialist contractor to develop a centralised premises risk database.

Verbatim wording from the response

“LFB is preparing to commence the process of tendering for a specialist contractor to develop a single point of reference premises risk database, which will enable all information concerning premises to be centralised and available on demand. All firefighters and fire safety personnel will have access to the database when it becomes available. This will ensure better preparedness by LFB for all operational and fire safety contingencies.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 13 March 2023

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

Circulate and publish reminders requiring fire safety officers to review premises databases before visiting premises.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Existing LFB policy requires that all fire safety officers review premises databases available to them within the Brigade, in advance of visiting any premises. The Assistant Commissioner for Prevention and Protection will be circulating a reminder of this requirement to all fire safety inspectors, by e-mail before 31 May 2023. He also intends to place an article reminding staff of this requirement, in the LFB fire safety newsletter - Fire Safety News.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 13 March 2023

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

Integrate peak activity inspectors into mainstream fire safety inspection teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since the fire that resulted in the death of Mr Ceida, LFB has brought the role of peak activity inspector within the mainstream fire safety inspection teams. As such, peak activity inspectors are no longer independent from other fire safety inspectors.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 13 March 2023

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
2/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026