PFD report

Mrs Gabrielle Sarah Anne Steel · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Oct 2024•East 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
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
12

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 leave or share written fire risk management plans with relevant recipients
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures
  2. Failure to convey home fire safety findings to responsible carers
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of smoking-related fire risks in vulnerable peoplePart of recurring concern: Incomplete and unreliable information about carers and care arrangements
  3. Absence of a risk management plan to reduce fire harm
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency control of home fire risks for vulnerable residents
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

    Conduct enhanced monitoring for people known to Adult Social Care who have an established fire risk, for one year.

    Stated by London Borough of NewhamStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 October 2024.
  2. Action

    Hold training for social care staff on fire safety risk assessment and risk management plans.

    Stated by London Borough of NewhamStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 October 2024.
  3. Action

    Produce a briefing on developing fire safety risk management plans, covering escalation, LFB feedback, and plan reviews.

    Stated by London Borough of NewhamStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 October 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Existing policy authorises sharing advice only with a resident who can understand and retain it, so staff followed the correct process.

    Stated by London Fire BrigadeExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 leave or share written fire risk management plans with relevant recipients

Wider context from the report

“1. The risk of fire, due to smoking in bed was recognised by a local authority occupational therapist. A request was made to the London Fire Brigade for a home fire safety visit. The assessment took place promptly, but neither the occupational therapist, nor the social worker enquired into the outcome of the home fire safety visit, so that a risk management plan could be put in place. 2. The findings of the home fire safety visit were shared only with Mrs Steel – a vulnerable, elderly lady. The findings were not conveyed to those with responsibility for caring for her. 3. A written risk assessment/risk management plan was completed by the London Fire Brigade. This was not left in the property or shared with Mrs Steel, her family, her carers or the agency who requested the fire safety check. 4. As a result of the poor communication from the LFB, there was no risk management plan in place to reduce the risk of fire harm to Mrs Steel. Had the findings of the fire assessor been communicated, carers would have been aware of the need to re-iterate the importance of stubbing out cigarettes in an ashtray and not leaving cigarettes to burn out; the need to dispose of all non-flame retardant bedding, to ensure that the safe bedding was in place at all times; the importance of keeping extraneous flammable materials away from the bed, as much as possible. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

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 convey home fire safety findings to responsible carers

Wider context from the report

“1. The risk of fire, due to smoking in bed was recognised by a local authority occupational therapist. A request was made to the London Fire Brigade for a home fire safety visit. The assessment took place promptly, but neither the occupational therapist, nor the social worker enquired into the outcome of the home fire safety visit, so that a risk management plan could be put in place. 2. The findings of the home fire safety visit were shared only with Mrs Steel – a vulnerable, elderly lady. The findings were not conveyed to those with responsibility for caring for her. 3. A written risk assessment/risk management plan was completed by the London Fire Brigade. This was not left in the property or shared with Mrs Steel, her family, her carers or the agency who requested the fire safety check. 4. As a result of the poor communication from the LFB, there was no risk management plan in place to reduce the risk of fire harm to Mrs Steel. Had the findings of the fire assessor been communicated, carers would have been aware of the need to re-iterate the importance of stubbing out cigarettes in an ashtray and not leaving cigarettes to burn out; the need to dispose of all non-flame retardant bedding, to ensure that the safe bedding was in place at all times; the importance of keeping extraneous flammable materials away from the bed, as much as possible. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of smoking-related fire risks in vulnerable people; Incomplete and unreliable information about carers and care arrangements.

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

Absence of a risk management plan to reduce fire harm

Wider context from the report

“1. The risk of fire, due to smoking in bed was recognised by a local authority occupational therapist. A request was made to the London Fire Brigade for a home fire safety visit. The assessment took place promptly, but neither the occupational therapist, nor the social worker enquired into the outcome of the home fire safety visit, so that a risk management plan could be put in place. 2. The findings of the home fire safety visit were shared only with Mrs Steel – a vulnerable, elderly lady. The findings were not conveyed to those with responsibility for caring for her. 3. A written risk assessment/risk management plan was completed by the London Fire Brigade. This was not left in the property or shared with Mrs Steel, her family, her carers or the agency who requested the fire safety check. 4. As a result of the poor communication from the LFB, there was no risk management plan in place to reduce the risk of fire harm to Mrs Steel. Had the findings of the fire assessor been communicated, carers would have been aware of the need to re-iterate the importance of stubbing out cigarettes in an ashtray and not leaving cigarettes to burn out; the need to dispose of all non-flame retardant bedding, to ensure that the safe bedding was in place at all times; the importance of keeping extraneous flammable materials away from the bed, as much as possible. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable multi-agency control of home fire risks for vulnerable residents.

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 enquire into the outcome of home fire safety visits

Wider context from the report

“1. The risk of fire, due to smoking in bed was recognised by a local authority occupational therapist. A request was made to the London Fire Brigade for a home fire safety visit. The assessment took place promptly, but neither the occupational therapist, nor the social worker enquired into the outcome of the home fire safety visit, so that a risk management plan could be put in place. 2. The findings of the home fire safety visit were shared only with Mrs Steel – a vulnerable, elderly lady. The findings were not conveyed to those with responsibility for caring for her. 3. A written risk assessment/risk management plan was completed by the London Fire Brigade. This was not left in the property or shared with Mrs Steel, her family, her carers or the agency who requested the fire safety check. 4. As a result of the poor communication from the LFB, there was no risk management plan in place to reduce the risk of fire harm to Mrs Steel. Had the findings of the fire assessor been communicated, carers would have been aware of the need to re-iterate the importance of stubbing out cigarettes in an ashtray and not leaving cigarettes to burn out; the need to dispose of all non-flame retardant bedding, to ensure that the safe bedding was in place at all times; the importance of keeping extraneous flammable materials away from the bed, as much as possible. ”

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

Conduct enhanced monitoring for people known to Adult Social Care who have an established fire risk, for one year.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Action: Enhanced monitoring where there is an established risk of fire for people known to Adult Social Care. The monitoring will take place for the next year with the objective of ensuring learning is embedded. Who: Strategic Safeguarding When: Monitoring to start from 2025”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Newham
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 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

Hold training for social care staff on fire safety risk assessment and risk management plans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Action: To further improve training for social care staff by holding a training session on fire safety risk assessment and risk management plans. This session will complement the joint training session which took place on 25/04/24. Who: Workforce Development and Strategic Safeguarding When: 30/01/25”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Newham
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 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

Produce a briefing on developing fire safety risk management plans, covering escalation, LFB feedback, and plan reviews.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Action: Produce a ‘7 minute briefing on the development of fire safety risk management”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Newham
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 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

Review Home Fire Safety Visit booking questions to identify in-home care and recommend that carers attend visits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“LFB are reviewing the questions asked at the point of booking the visit to ensure that information is gained regarding whether there is the provision of care in the home and recommend that the carer attends the visit. LFB are also considering the best ways of communicating with the carer or family member if they are not present, for example leaving guidance in the property including information about flame retardant bedding where appropriate.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 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

Review information-sharing processes, the data-protection impact assessment and third-party disclosure arrangements, consulting information-management specialists and the Information Commissioner.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Noting HM Coroner's observations, we have started to review our processes and have engaged with our Information Management Team to discuss the data protection issues around sharing information with third parties where the resident has full mental capacity. LFB are reviewing the data protection privacy impact assessment and consulting the Information Commissioner to fully scope how we can best meet this need while ensuring privacy for the resident.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 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

Scope options for leaving bespoke fire-safety information with residents, family members or carers, engaging other fire services to identify best practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“LFB are reviewing the questions asked at the point of booking the visit to ensure that information is gained regarding whether there is the provision of care in the home and recommend that the carer attends the visit. LFB are also considering the best ways of communicating with the carer or family member if they are not present, for example leaving guidance in the property including information about flame retardant bedding where appropriate.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 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

Update Home Fire Safety Visit policy, guidance and staff training where necessary following the process review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this review LFB will where necessary update the policy, guidance, and training to ensure all staff carrying out Home Fire Safety Visits fully understand this process.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 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

Existing policy authorises sharing advice only with a resident who can understand and retain it, so staff followed the correct process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Existing LFB policy, which follows national best practice, does not authorise staff to share findings with any other person. Providing staff are satisfied that the individual recipient is able to understand and retain the advice given, they share advice and observations face to face. During the booking of Mrs Steel's Home Fire Safety Visit it was confirmed that Mrs Steel was able to understand, process and retain the information provided – this was noted on our records and therefore the crews followed the correct process as outlined in the policy.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 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

Care providers are responsible for planning and delivering care based on risk assessments, including assessing and mitigating fire risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Fire Service's statutory role does not include responsibility for a resident's care plan or for making or contributing to a personalised risk management plan for an individual resident. Home Fire Safety Visits are not intended to be personal risk assessments but to be provision of fire safety advice to the resident. Care providers are regulated to plan and deliver care based on risk assessments, and this should include assessing risk from fire. A care provider should not need an HFSV to prompt attention on any of the points raised above. However, we accept that there is learning around communication with the carer about identified fire risk within the limitations of UK GDPR/Data Protection A 2018 and for the HFSV process to reinforce the need for care providers to have regard to fire safety. We have set out above that we are taking steps to explore improvements.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 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 statutory fire service role does not include responsibility for an individual resident’s care plan or personalised risk management plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Fire Service's statutory role does not include responsibility for a resident's care plan or for making or contributing to a personalised risk management plan for an individual resident. The purpose of a Home Fire Safety Visit is to provide advice and guidance to help keep the resident safe. At a Home Fire Safety Visit, LFB staff record advice given on a data collection form which is then uploaded into a database. In most cases this information is recorded using a tablet which will populate the database automatically. Existing LFB policy, which follows national best practice, does not authorise staff to share findings with any other person and currently no functionality to be able to leave a copy of the findings with the resident.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 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.5

  1. 1

    Oversee the action plan, monitor progress against its timescales, and report progress to the Directorate Management Team.

    Stated by London Borough of NewhamStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 October 2024.
  2. 2

    Hold a reflective case discussion at the multi-agency Fire Safety Group, including review of previous reflective sessions.

    Stated by London Borough of NewhamStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 October 2024.
  3. 3

    Update the prevention-focused action plan to reflect the Inquest findings.

    Stated by London Borough of NewhamStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 October 2024.
  4. 4

    Engage local authorities to share report learning and reinforce carers’ role in reducing fire risk.

    Stated by London Fire BrigadeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 October 2024.
  5. 5

    Share report learning and subsequent process improvements with other fire and rescue services through the NFCC National Organisational Learning process.

    Stated by London Fire BrigadeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 October 2024.

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

Oversee the action plan, monitor progress against its timescales, and report progress to the Directorate Management Team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All elements of the plan are linked to specific teams with accountability for their delivery. Oversight of the action plan is being held by the Strategic Safeguarding Team who will monitor progress against the stated timescales and then report back to the Directorate Management Team. We also recognise that the overall plan will need to remain agile and be adapted if further information comes to light.”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Newham
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 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

Hold a reflective case discussion at the multi-agency Fire Safety Group, including review of previous reflective sessions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Action: A reflective case discussion at the Fire Safety Group on 10/12/24. The Fire Safety Group is the multi-agency group responsible for fire safety issues in the Borough. This discussion will involve a review of previous reflective sessions. Who: Strategic Safeguarding Adviser When: 10/12/24”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Newham
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 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

Update the prevention-focused action plan to reflect the Inquest findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A core group of Senior Officers from the department were involved in a detailed review of Ms Steel’s case following her death. The review resulted in an action plan with a focus on prevention, this emphasised a number of interventions including smoking cessation. We have updated our action plan following the Inquest findings; please see below for details of this.”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Newham
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 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

Engage local authorities to share report learning and reinforce carers’ role in reducing fire risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“LFB will engage with Local Authorities to share the learning from this report and reiterate the role of the carer in reducing fire risk. LFB will also share the learning from this report, and our subsequent actions to improve our processes, with other Fire and Rescue Services through the NFCC National Organisational Learning process.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 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

Share report learning and subsequent process improvements with other fire and rescue services through the NFCC National Organisational Learning process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“LFB will engage with Local Authorities to share the learning from this report and reiterate the role of the carer in reducing fire risk. LFB will also share the learning from this report, and our subsequent actions to improve our processes, with other Fire and Rescue Services through the NFCC National Organisational Learning process.”

Source location

Response from London Fire Brigade
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 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

Official responses located
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026