PFD report

Lauren Barfoot · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Aug 2014•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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
8

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 raised5

  1. Failure to classify a missing person as high risk when warranted
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable missing-person response
  2. Failure to relay full and detailed high-risk information to the missing persons unit
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care
  3. Failure to hold a timely strategy meeting to pool information and resources for an effective search
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate multi-agency safeguarding coordination
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.8

  1. Action

    Review the response and existing measures against the inquest findings to ensure they address the identified issues and are embedded in current practice.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 August 2014.
  2. Action

    Complete the Metropolitan Police missing-person reporting form when a child arrives.

    Stated by Ethelbert Childrens ServicesStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 August 2014.
  3. Action

    Complete and pass a vulnerability assessment to Kent Police for each child at placement.

    Stated by Ethelbert Childrens ServicesStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 August 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Implemented information-sharing arrangements, vulnerability assessments, reporting forms and telephone notifications address concerns about missing children’s information and risk assessment.

    Stated by Ethelbert Childrens ServicesExisting 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 classify a missing person as high risk when warranted

Wider context from the report

“(3) There was a failure by the MPS Missing Person's Unit (Greenwich) to carry out an effective search for Lauren as a consequence of the lack of information not shared with the Unit by those responsible for looking after and searching for Lauren, and therefore a missed opportunity for the Missing Person's Unit to classify Lauren as a “high risk missing person”. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable missing-person 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

Failure to relay full and detailed high-risk information to the missing persons unit

Wider context from the report

“(2) There was a failure by Ethelbert’s Children’s Services to relay full and detailed information to the Missing Person’s Unit (Greenwich) as to the level of risk classified as “high” in relation to Lauren’s misuse of solvent abuse and vulnerability of sexual exploitation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care.

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 hold a timely strategy meeting to pool information and resources for an effective search

Wider context from the report

“(4) There was a failure by the London Borough of Bexley to hold a timely “strategy meeting” by those concerned in the care for Lauren after she had been missing for several days in order to pool information and resources in order to carry out an effective search for Lauren. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate multi-agency safeguarding coordination.

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 carry out an effective search for a missing person

Wider context from the report

“(3) There was a failure by the MPS Missing Person's Unit (Greenwich) to carry out an effective search for Lauren as a consequence of the lack of information not shared with the Unit by those responsible for looking after and searching for Lauren, and therefore a missed opportunity for the Missing Person's Unit to classify Lauren as a “high risk missing person”. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable missing-person 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

Failure to record and make accessible comprehensive contact information for people who could assist in a search

Wider context from the report

“(1) There was a failure by the London Borough of Bexley Social Services to record and make accessible, a comprehensive list of Lauren’s friends, family and acquaintances and their addresses and contact numbers, with whom contact could be made in order to assist professionals in an effective search for Lauren. ”

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

Review the response and existing measures against the inquest findings to ensure they address the identified issues and are embedded in current practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I enclose a report detailing our actions, addressing the specific issues of information sharing and risk assessment, but also our broader response to the serious case review that followed Lauren's death. I have caused our response to be reviewed in light of the inquest to ensure that those measures introduced following the serious case review account for the issues raised in your report and are fully embedded in current practice.”

Source location

2014-0385-Response-by-Metropolitan-Police
Page 1 · response
Published 28 August 2014

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

Complete the Metropolitan Police missing-person reporting form when a child arrives.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Met Police Missing Person Reporting Form”

Source location

2014-0385-Response-by-Ethelbert-Childrens-Services1
Page 1 · response
Published 28 August 2014

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

Complete and pass a vulnerability assessment to Kent Police for each child at placement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Vulnerability Assessment”

Source location

2014-0385-Response-by-Ethelbert-Childrens-Services1
Page 1 · response
Published 28 August 2014

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

Provide the police with current circumstances and relevant additional details by telephone when reporting a child missing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Once you have had an opportunity to review the action list we trust that you will find the steps that we have implemented, address concerns in respect of the collation of information as to the risk assessment of a child and contact details which can be shared with other agencies.”

Source location

2014-0385-Response-by-Ethelbert-Childrens-Services1
Page 1 · response
Published 28 August 2014

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

Return information about a missing young person’s associations to, and hold it centrally within, the Placements Service.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Bexley Children’s Social Care sends a letter and proforma document recording the associations of young people to all residential providers. Previously, Bexley relied on the residential providers own protocols in respect of missing children. It was identified that these varied across the country. The letter and proforma also sets out expectations regarding having an up to date list available. By Bexley giving providers the process and pro-forma documents, we can be confident that when a child goes missing they are aware of our expectations in collecting information on”

Source location

2014-0385-Response-by-Bexley-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 28 August 2014

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

Send residential providers letters and proformas requiring them to maintain up-to-date lists of a young person’s associations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Bexley Children’s Social Care sends a letter and proforma document recording the associations of young people to all residential providers. Previously, Bexley relied on the residential providers own protocols in respect of missing children. It was identified that these varied across the country. The letter and proforma also sets out expectations regarding having an up to date list available. By Bexley giving providers the process and pro-forma documents, we can be confident that when a child goes missing they are aware of our expectations in collecting information on”

Source location

2014-0385-Response-by-Bexley-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 28 August 2014

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 missing looked-after children’s strategy meetings within prescribed timescales, oversee their timeliness, and monitor performance through monthly reports and meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Strategy meetings for missing looked after children are held within the timescales set out in the “Children who go missing from Home or Care Practice Guidance” implemented in May 2013. The holding of the strategy meetings are overseen by the manager for the ‘looked after’ Independent Reviewing Officer service. The timeliness of ‘missing’ strategy meetings is tracked in monthly performance reports and meetings, to ensure good practice is maintained.”

Source location

2014-0385-Response-by-Bexley-Borough-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 28 August 2014

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

Prepare risk assessment reports for missing looked-after children’s strategy meetings and pass them to police to inform search-risk and resource decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A risk assessment report is required in preparation for any strategy meetings for missing looked after children. A strategy meeting is held within three days of a child going missing. The social worker will provide a risk assessment report to the meeting in accordance with the Bexley Practice Guidance pro-forma for assessing risk. The meeting is chaired by the Independent Reviewing Officer for the child. The risk assessment report requires comprehensive information about all possible contacts and locations where the child may be found, including any information known about risks presenting to the young person. The risk assessment report will be passed to the police at the strategy meeting in order that they can assess the level of risk and resources required so that they can carry out an effective search for the missing young person.”

Source location

2014-0385-Response-by-Bexley-Borough-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 28 August 2014

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

Implemented information-sharing arrangements, vulnerability assessments, reporting forms and telephone notifications address concerns about missing children’s information and risk assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Once you have had an opportunity to review the action list we trust that you will find the steps that we have implemented, address concerns in respect of the collation of information as to the risk assessment of a child and contact details which can be shared with other agencies.”

Source location

2014-0385-Response-by-Ethelbert-Childrens-Services1
Page 1 · response
Published 28 August 2014

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

Email transmission of updated missing-person information is constrained because the relevant police forces lack facilities to receive it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We continue to explore the possibility of sending an updated missing person form by email, to the police as outlined in action list, although to date our conversations with the Met have not proved successful.”

Source location

2014-0385-Response-by-Ethelbert-Childrens-Services1
Page 1 · response
Published 28 August 2014

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