Aram Ali Mustafa · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Jun 2019•Birmingham and Solihull

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
17

Described in responses

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 raised2

  1. Failure to provide sufficient details about safeguarding concerns and health care matters
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable interagency sharing of safeguarding risk information
  2. Failure to log safeguarding matters with the safeguarding hub regardless of a person's location in the system
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of safeguarding information

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.17

  1. G4S Care And Justice Services (UK) Limited

    Participate in a monthly Senior Safeguarding Working Group reviewing safeguarding cases and information gaps.

  2. G4S Care And Justice Services (UK) Limited

    Compile incident reports containing relevant information and forward them to UKVI, including safeguarding recipients where applicable.

  3. G4S Care And Justice Services (UK) Limited

    Notify UKVI safeguarding leads and the Safeguarding Hub immediately through the central contact centre, and relay resulting advice to operational teams.

  4. Home Office

    Share learning from the incident widely across the Home Office.

  5. Home Office

    Capture and share safeguarding best practice and lessons learned across Immigration Enforcement to improve responses.

  6. Home Office

    Maintain a network of Vulnerability Champions across Immigration Enforcement to support and advise colleagues on concerning cases.

  7. Home Office

    Require fuller vulnerability details, record them on CID and referral forms, and check CID more thoroughly before onward referral.

  8. Home Office

    Pilot and introduce a vulnerability-scoring purpose matrix to guide escalation and Safeguarding Hub referrals, subject to senior-management sign-off.

  9. Home Office

    Check that referring officers identify and record relevant safeguarding and vulnerability concerns on referral forms.

  10. Home Office

    Use a shared safeguarding spreadsheet for teams to record actions, updates, onward referrals and Safeguarding Hub referrals.

  11. Home Office

    Roll out mandatory two-day vulnerability training covering identification of concerns and appropriate safeguarding steps to Immigration Enforcement staff.

  12. Urban Housing Services

    Raise safeguarding concerns with G4S when SCF forms lack adequate detail.

  13. Urban Housing Services

    Draft and distribute incident reports and support notifications when resident concerns, including mental-health issues, are identified.

  14. Urban Housing Services

    Record additional resident concerns and related actions in the staff handover book.

  15. Urban Housing Services

    Update and brief security staff on out-of-hours guidance for directing residents to hospital.

  16. Urban Housing Services

    Provide staff training, including first-aid training that is routinely refreshed.

  17. Urban Housing Services

    Review safeguarding procedures and interactions with other service providers.

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

  1. G4S Care And Justice Services (UK) Limited

    Further action is limited because the contract ends on 31 August 2019, after which there will be no involvement in asylum accommodation services.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. G4S Care And Justice Services (UK) Limited

    Obtaining consent forms when service users are assessed for accommodation is a matter for UKVI.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  3. G4S Care And Justice Services (UK) Limited

    Managing the Safeguarding Hub rests with UKVI, so no further response can be provided on that matter.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  4. Home Office

    The Safeguarding Hub is funded only for asylum-claimant service users and cannot act on referrals made after removal.

    Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  5. Home Office

    Information shared with external contractors is limited by GDPR to data shown to be required, relevant, secure and in the applicant’s best interests.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  6. Urban Housing Services

    The Safeguarding Hub is operated by UKVI and is outside the respondent's control.

    Outside 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

Failure to provide sufficient details about safeguarding concerns and health care matters

Wider context from the report

“1. When he had first illegally entered the UK Mr Mustafa was deported to Italy on 29/10/18. Just before he was deported he confirmed he would kill himself if he was deported. He was provided with 1:1 constant watch and was successfully deported. When he re-entered the UK on 30/01/19 he was seen by a member of the immigration compliance and enforcement team who completed paperwork for the national asylum accommodation unit who in turn completed a service commission form requesting initial accommodation. The service commission form recorded that he had urgent medical needs and was a safeguarding concern however no detail was provided. Neither G4S nor Urban housing services requested any further details. A system needs to be put in place to ensure organisations provide sufficient details for providers to understand the nature of safeguarding concerns and health care matters. If there are GDPR concerns these could easily be addressed by a consent form at the time the person is first seen. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care; Unreliable interagency sharing of safeguarding risk information.

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 log safeguarding matters with the safeguarding hub regardless of a person's location in the system

Wider context from the report

“2. The events on 29/10/18 when he made a threat to kill himself were not logged with the safeguarding hub as he was about to be deported. There needs to be a system to ensure all safeguarding matters are logged regardless of where the person is in the system ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording of safeguarding information.

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

Participate in a monthly Senior Safeguarding Working Group reviewing safeguarding cases and information gaps.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The matter of consent forms when service users are first assessed for accommodation is a matter for UKVI. G4S has however taken the following steps in order to seek improvements to the process and level of information exchange:”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-G4S-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Compile incident reports containing relevant information and forward them to UKVI, including safeguarding recipients where applicable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We also have a robust incident management process and operational teams, including UHS, compile incident reports which include all relevant information about the incident in question. All incident reports are forwarded to UKVI by our central contact centre. Should these incidents relate to safeguarding concerns then the Safeguarding Hub and leads are included in the communication.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-G4S-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Notify UKVI safeguarding leads and the Safeguarding Hub immediately through the central contact centre, and relay resulting advice to operational teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As above, G4S were not aware of Mr Mustafa’s prior suicide threat and are not responsible for managing the Safeguarding Hub. Given that this rests with UKVI, it is not something upon which it can respond further. G4S does however have systems in place to ensure that matters of safeguarding concerns uncovered during the course of delivering its services are notified to UKVI. UKVI has its own Safeguarding Hub as well as 2 x safeguarding leads in each of the G4S contract regions. Any issues in relation to safeguarding are immediately raised with these respective leads as well as the Safeguarding Hub by our central contact centre which collates all information and feeds back advice and information to the relevant operational teams.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-G4S-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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 learning from the incident widely across the Home Office.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you again for bringing this matter of concern to my client’s attention. My client will ensure that learning from this tragic incident is shared widely across the Home Office.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Government-Legal-Department-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Capture and share safeguarding best practice and lessons learned across Immigration Enforcement to improve responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“who can support and advise colleagues when cases of concern arise. Best practice and lessons learnt are also captured by the Immigration Enforcement Vulnerability Team and shared across Immigration Enforcement, to continually improve their safeguarding response.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Government-Legal-Department-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Maintain a network of Vulnerability Champions across Immigration Enforcement to support and advise colleagues on concerning cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of work underway in Immigration Enforcement, they have been rolling out a 2 day mandatory vulnerability training course to all staff, which includes how to identify vulnerability concerns and appropriate steps to take. They have also now have a network of Vulnerability Champions across Immigration Enforcement”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Government-Legal-Department-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Require fuller vulnerability details, record them on CID and referral forms, and check CID more thoroughly before onward referral.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Home Office have confirmed that the first responders are being challenged for further detail when referring a case into NAAU (National Asylum Allocation Unit) in relation to any indication of vulnerabilities. This information is being recorded on the CID database and on the SCF 4386 referral form prior to being forwarded to the Routing Team. CID is being checked more thoroughly by the Intake Team to reduce the risk of missing information that wasn’t forthcoming from the referring officers.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Government-Legal-Department-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Pilot and introduce a vulnerability-scoring purpose matrix to guide escalation and Safeguarding Hub referrals, subject to senior-management sign-off.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additionally, a NAAU purpose matrix will be piloted, with a point base scoring system which will guide staff in terms of vulnerabilities that require escalation to the Hub. This is awaiting to be signed off by Senior Management. The Matrix which is due to be introduced will help to decide on the level of vulnerability and hence if a Safeguarding Referral is required.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Government-Legal-Department-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Check that referring officers identify and record relevant safeguarding and vulnerability concerns on referral forms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Specific safeguarding and vulnerable concerns are included in the referral form – a list of possible concerns are listed and the referring officer is asked whether they have any relevance to the customer. Checks are put in place to ensure this happens.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Government-Legal-Department-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Use a shared safeguarding spreadsheet for teams to record actions, updates, onward referrals and Safeguarding Hub referrals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, a spreadsheet has been introduced that records all the safeguarding action and will be jointly in use by all the Teams in accordance with the order of process, i.e. Intake will make the initial input as per referral and followed by RIAV (Routing Initial Accommodation Validation) and Routing updating their subsequent action – this will include onward referrals to the Service Providers, and the Safeguarding Hub.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Government-Legal-Department-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Roll out mandatory two-day vulnerability training covering identification of concerns and appropriate safeguarding steps to Immigration Enforcement staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of work underway in Immigration Enforcement, they have been rolling out a 2 day mandatory vulnerability training course to all staff, which includes how to identify vulnerability concerns and appropriate steps to take. They have also now have a network of Vulnerability Champions across Immigration Enforcement”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Government-Legal-Department-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Raise safeguarding concerns with G4S when SCF forms lack adequate detail.

Verbatim wording from the response

“ii. G4S now flag SCF forms where a safeguarding issue is raised without adequate detail being provided with UKVI. UHSL also raise these issues with G4S; and”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Urban-Housing-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Draft and distribute incident reports and support notifications when resident concerns, including mental-health issues, are identified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“If a concern (such as mental health issues) about a resident is noted, an incident report is drafted and sent to G4S. This includes as much information as we have available and actions we have taken. This information can then be passed on to UKVI by G4S and ensures that these concerns can be notified to any future residence, or those with responsibilities for the resident. An email is also sent to the charity Migrant Help and Attwood Health Centre to enable the resident to obtain the appropriate level of support.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Urban-Housing-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Record additional resident concerns and related actions in the staff handover book.

Verbatim wording from the response

“UHS has always undertaken welfare checks on residents whenever a concern is raised. These continue. Following Mr Mustafa's death additional information is being recorded in our staff handover book to ensure any issues raised are recorded and appropriate measures can be taken by site management.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Urban-Housing-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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 and brief security staff on out-of-hours guidance for directing residents to hospital.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The out of hours guidance provided to security staff has been updated detailing when a resident should be directed to hospital. This has been briefed to staff.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Urban-Housing-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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 staff training, including first-aid training that is routinely refreshed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Staff training has been conducted. It was confirmed at the inquest that the staff present on the night of Mustafa's death were first aid trained. This is continually refreshed and further courses are being looked into.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Urban-Housing-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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 safeguarding procedures and interactions with other service providers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following Mr Mustafa's tragic death, in conjunction with others involved in the provision of services to asylum applicants, we have reviewed our procedures and the way we interact.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Urban-Housing-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Further action is limited because the contract ends on 31 August 2019, after which there will be no involvement in asylum accommodation services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“G4S’ ability to take further action on the matters raised is limited given that its contract with UKVI ends on 31st August 2019. It will thereafter have no involvement in the provision of asylum seeker accommodation services.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-G4S-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Obtaining consent forms when service users are assessed for accommodation is a matter for UKVI.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The matter of consent forms when service users are first assessed for accommodation is a matter for UKVI. G4S has however taken the following steps in order to seek improvements to the process and level of information exchange:”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-G4S-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Managing the Safeguarding Hub rests with UKVI, so no further response can be provided on that matter.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As above, G4S were not aware of Mr Mustafa’s prior suicide threat and are not responsible for managing the Safeguarding Hub. Given that this rests with UKVI, it is not something upon which it can respond further. G4S does however have systems in place to ensure that matters of safeguarding concerns uncovered during the course of delivering its services are notified to UKVI. UKVI has its own Safeguarding Hub as well as 2 x safeguarding leads in each of the G4S contract regions. Any issues in relation to safeguarding are immediately raised with these respective leads as well as the Safeguarding Hub by our central contact centre which collates all information and feeds back advice and information to the relevant operational teams.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-G4S-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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 Safeguarding Hub is funded only for asylum-claimant service users and cannot act on referrals made after removal.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Referrals can come into the Safeguarding Hub from any source however they deal with service users who have an asylum claim; they are only funded for this. G4S and others would have had access to the Hub provided they are regarding asylum applicants. The Hub could not have done anything if a referral was made post removal. However, if a referral had been made prior to removal and included details of suicide risk, the Hub would have accepted the referral.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Government-Legal-Department-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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

Information shared with external contractors is limited by GDPR to data shown to be required, relevant, secure and in the applicant’s best interests.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We set out below the factors provided by the Home Office to take into account while sharing information with external contractors in line with GDPR.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Government-Legal-Department-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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 Safeguarding Hub is operated by UKVI and is outside the respondent's control.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The threats made by Mr Mustafa on 29 October 2018 were shortly prior to his removal from the country when he was not resident with us. UHS had no knowledge of this threat. We note this was not recorded with the Safeguarding Hub. The Safeguarding Hub is operated by UKVI and as such is outside of UHS' control. We understand UKVI is reviewing this system following the tragic death of Mr Mustafa.”

Source location

2019-0508-Response-from-Urban-Housing-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020

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
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026