PFD report

Steven Thomas Billington · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Jul 2016•Manchester West

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

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 raised1

  1. Failure to protect the mains-powered alarm system on/off control-switch from unauthorised switching
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.1

  1. Action

    Review relevant standards for installing fire detection and alarm systems.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 July 2016.

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

  1. Position

    Current British Standard guidance already requires fire alarm isolators to be secured against unauthorised tampering.

    Stated by Home OfficeExisting 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 protect the mains-powered alarm system on/off control-switch from unauthorised switching

Wider context from the report

“The on/off control-switch for the mains powered alarm system was not protected and was therefore able to be switched off. Evidence was given that the relevant regulations do not require the on/off control for such a system to be rendered inaccessible to all but authorised persons. Further evidence revealed that it would be a simple matter to protect the control by it being placed, for example, in a locked cupboard and this would have no detrimental effect as the control panel for the system that allows it to be reset in the event of false alarm is separately situated from the on/off control-switch. ”

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 relevant standards for installing fire detection and alarm systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I was very sorry to read about Mr Billington’s death. I understand that the power supply to the fire alarm in the building had been switched off and that this may have contributed to his death. My officials have looked at the relevant standards for the installation of fire detection and alarm systems. It appears that the current guidance in British Standard 5839 already requires that isolators for fire alarm systems are appropriately secured against unauthorised tampering. Perhaps the system in question was an older system that did not meet the current standard.”

Source location

2016-0247-Response-by-Department-for-Communities-and-Local-Government
Page 1 · response
Published 12 July 2016

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

Current British Standard guidance already requires fire alarm isolators to be secured against unauthorised tampering.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I was very sorry to read about Mr Billington’s death. I understand that the power supply to the fire alarm in the building had been switched off and that this may have contributed to his death. My officials have looked at the relevant standards for the installation of fire detection and alarm systems. It appears that the current guidance in British Standard 5839 already requires that isolators for fire alarm systems are appropriately secured against unauthorised tampering. Perhaps the system in question was an older system that did not meet the current standard.”

Source location

2016-0247-Response-by-Department-for-Communities-and-Local-Government
Page 1 · response
Published 12 July 2016

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

Any identified weakness in the standard should be referred to the relevant British Standards Institution committee.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, if the investigations of the fire and rescue service have identified a weakness in the standard, then this should be brought to the attention of the relevant committee at the British Standards Institution. The committee may need more information than is contained in your report. If you or the fire and rescue service need assistance in this respect, please contact my official, ████████ at my address, or email ████████”

Source location

2016-0247-Response-by-Department-for-Communities-and-Local-Government
Page 1 · response
Published 12 July 2016

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

  1. 1

    Further concerns should be discussed by the coroner or Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service with the British Standards Institution.

    Stated by Home OfficeRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Further concerns should be discussed by the coroner or Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service with the British Standards Institution.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I trust you, or the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, will take the opportunity to discuss with British Standards Institution any further concerns that you may have.”

Source location

S-Billington-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 12 July 2016

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