PFD report

George Robert DILLON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Jul 2024•Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
8

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 raised3

  1. Failure of procedures to support appropriately prompt response to collision alerts indicating possible risk to life
  2. Inadequate training for responding to serious car crash detection alerts
  3. Insufficient police understanding of serious car crash detection technology
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.5

  1. Action

    Direct a task-and-finish group to create an agreed national position on automated crash-detection calls, including e-call, mobile-phone and wearable notifications.

    Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 September 2024.
  2. Action

    Review and refresh the Code of Practice for the Public Emergency Call Service, including arrangements for SOS alerts using UK GSM networks.

    Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 September 2024.
  3. Action

    Issue written guidance across Hampshire and Thames Valley forces directing deployment for unsupported crash-technology notifications.

    Stated by Hampshire and Isle of Wight ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 September 2024.

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 of procedures to support appropriately prompt response to collision alerts indicating possible risk to life

Wider context from the report

“A. At 22.26pm Hampshire Constabulary’s control room received an automated telephone call from the deceased’s i-Phone indicating that the deceased had been in a serious car crash and was not responding to their i-Phone. The operator logged “no direct request made and cannot hear anything distinctive in the background – no sounds of distress/disturbance. An accurate location was provided by the i-Phone. B. The iPhone was called back, but the call went straight to voicemail. C. The control room supervisor forwarded the message to the intelligence team to establish who the i-Phone belonged to and whether there was any serious harm or risk to life at that time. D. By 22.43 the intelligence team had drawn a blank. But for a separate telephone call from a member of the public at 22.45, further steps may have been made to make contact (one of which, an “!cetrak” message which was sent to the i-Phone at 22.59 asking whether there was an emergency and requesting a 999 call if so) or a Police vehicle may have been assigned to attend the GPS co-ordinates provided by the i-Phone or no further action taken. E. The evidence indicated that false alarms from electronic devices such as telephones and watches are commonplace, and that locations received from such devices was often inaccurate and liable to involve substantial Police time in tracking the device down. F. The Apple serious car crash detection automatic calls were a recent development at the time of the index accident. Other manufacturers have launched a similar feature. The investigating officer stated during the inquest that “not enough is known (by the police) about this technology within people’s personal phones.” G. I am concerned that the understanding, training and procedures need review to assist with appropriately prompt response in situations where there is an indication of a collision where a risk to life may exist. ”

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

Inadequate training for responding to serious car crash detection alerts

Wider context from the report

“A. At 22.26pm Hampshire Constabulary’s control room received an automated telephone call from the deceased’s i-Phone indicating that the deceased had been in a serious car crash and was not responding to their i-Phone. The operator logged “no direct request made and cannot hear anything distinctive in the background – no sounds of distress/disturbance. An accurate location was provided by the i-Phone. B. The iPhone was called back, but the call went straight to voicemail. C. The control room supervisor forwarded the message to the intelligence team to establish who the i-Phone belonged to and whether there was any serious harm or risk to life at that time. D. By 22.43 the intelligence team had drawn a blank. But for a separate telephone call from a member of the public at 22.45, further steps may have been made to make contact (one of which, an “!cetrak” message which was sent to the i-Phone at 22.59 asking whether there was an emergency and requesting a 999 call if so) or a Police vehicle may have been assigned to attend the GPS co-ordinates provided by the i-Phone or no further action taken. E. The evidence indicated that false alarms from electronic devices such as telephones and watches are commonplace, and that locations received from such devices was often inaccurate and liable to involve substantial Police time in tracking the device down. F. The Apple serious car crash detection automatic calls were a recent development at the time of the index accident. Other manufacturers have launched a similar feature. The investigating officer stated during the inquest that “not enough is known (by the police) about this technology within people’s personal phones.” G. I am concerned that the understanding, training and procedures need review to assist with appropriately prompt response in situations where there is an indication of a collision where a risk to life may exist. ”

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

Insufficient police understanding of serious car crash detection technology

Wider context from the report

“A. At 22.26pm Hampshire Constabulary’s control room received an automated telephone call from the deceased’s i-Phone indicating that the deceased had been in a serious car crash and was not responding to their i-Phone. The operator logged “no direct request made and cannot hear anything distinctive in the background – no sounds of distress/disturbance. An accurate location was provided by the i-Phone. B. The iPhone was called back, but the call went straight to voicemail. C. The control room supervisor forwarded the message to the intelligence team to establish who the i-Phone belonged to and whether there was any serious harm or risk to life at that time. D. By 22.43 the intelligence team had drawn a blank. But for a separate telephone call from a member of the public at 22.45, further steps may have been made to make contact (one of which, an “!cetrak” message which was sent to the i-Phone at 22.59 asking whether there was an emergency and requesting a 999 call if so) or a Police vehicle may have been assigned to attend the GPS co-ordinates provided by the i-Phone or no further action taken. E. The evidence indicated that false alarms from electronic devices such as telephones and watches are commonplace, and that locations received from such devices was often inaccurate and liable to involve substantial Police time in tracking the device down. F. The Apple serious car crash detection automatic calls were a recent development at the time of the index accident. Other manufacturers have launched a similar feature. The investigating officer stated during the inquest that “not enough is known (by the police) about this technology within people’s personal phones.” G. I am concerned that the understanding, training and procedures need review to assist with appropriately prompt response in situations where there is an indication of a collision where a risk to life may exist. ”

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

Direct a task-and-finish group to create an agreed national position on automated crash-detection calls, including e-call, mobile-phone and wearable notifications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In my role as NPCC lead for Contact Management I chair the National Contact Management Steering Group (NCMSG), which is made up of representatives from all police forces in England and Wales, plus Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Attendees also include representatives from government departments, HMICFRS, College of Policing and BT. I will be directing a task and finish group from the NCMSG on 13th September 2024 to work in fast time to create an agreed national position in relation to automated calls, including e-call, mobile phone crash detection and wearables notifications.”

Source location

Response from NPCC
Page 1 · response
Published 13 September 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 and refresh the Code of Practice for the Public Emergency Call Service, including arrangements for SOS alerts using UK GSM networks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I also chair the 999/112 Liaison Committee, which is a cross emergency service and governmental board, with attendees from BT, Vodafone and Ofcom supported by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This committee have ownership of the Code of Practice for the Public Emergency Call Service (PECS) which is the definitive document which deals with the method of handling 999/112 public emergency telephone calls between call handling agents and the emergency authorities. This is currently under review and includes in Memorandum of”

Source location

Response from NPCC
Page 1 · response
Published 13 September 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

Issue written guidance across Hampshire and Thames Valley forces directing deployment for unsupported crash-technology notifications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the time of the incident there was no national guidance available as to how police forces should be responding to crash notifications. Following the Inquest Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary accepted the need to put clear guidance in place. As a result immediate action was taken by the Head of Contact Management who;”

Source location

Response from Hampshire Constabulary
Page 2 · response
Published 13 September 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

Issue a video message updating staff and directing the required response to crash notifications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the time of the incident there was no national guidance available as to how police forces should be responding to crash notifications. Following the Inquest Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary accepted the need to put clear guidance in place. As a result immediate action was taken by the Head of Contact Management who;”

Source location

Response from Hampshire Constabulary
Page 2 · response
Published 13 September 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

Develop and bring live an operator toolkit covering abandoned and automated notification calls, including required checks and immediate deployment criteria.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition the Constabulary has now developed a toolkit to be made available to all operators and control room staff which is due to go live in September. Once it does a copy will be released to the coroner. The toolkit provides guidance for both abandoned and automated notification calls across what are now, a range of sources, including Apple Crash detections. The toolkit directs the call taker to confirm the eastings and northings, to record what was heard in playback, to check whether any incidents have been reported nearby and to search the caller’s history and undertake precautionary background checks. In the case of Apple Crash detection and Ford Notifications if there is no response on call back and no further information the operator is directed to create a Grade 1 incident for immediate deployment.”

Source location

Response from Hampshire Constabulary
Page 2 · response
Published 13 September 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.3

  1. 1

    Update the SOS-Alerts memorandum of understanding so it is fit for purpose and aligned with the Regulation 28 direction.

    Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 September 2024.
  2. 2

    Use the shared toolkit to support further national discussion of police responses to automated crash notifications.

    Stated by Hampshire and Isle of Wight ConstabularyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 September 2024.
  3. 3

    Share the Constabulary’s crash-notification toolkit with the national contact-management group.

    Stated by Hampshire and Isle of Wight ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 September 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

Update the SOS-Alerts memorandum of understanding so it is fit for purpose and aligned with the Regulation 28 direction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Understanding (MOU) in relation to SOS-Alerts using UK GSM Networks. At the next meeting on 11th September 2024, as part of the work already ongoing to review and refresh the PECS, I will task work to update this MOU so that it is fit for purpose in line with the direction of your Regulation 28 document.”

Source location

Response from NPCC
Page 2 · response
Published 13 September 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

Use the shared toolkit to support further national discussion of police responses to automated crash notifications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Changes have been made in part, because, as recognised at the inquest, the technology has advanced to the extent that the Constabulary’s previous approach left room for error, notwithstanding the development of these technologies has taken place with little or no interaction between the private companies providing these notifications and UK Policing. The Head of Contact Management has since engaged with the Chair of the National Contact Management Support Group, who has confirmed receipt of the coroner’s PDFN. A copy of the Constabulary’s Toolkit has been shared and it is now being used to further national discussion on the subject.”

Source location

Response from Hampshire Constabulary
Page 2 · response
Published 13 September 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 the Constabulary’s crash-notification toolkit with the national contact-management group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Changes have been made in part, because, as recognised at the inquest, the technology has advanced to the extent that the Constabulary’s previous approach left room for error, notwithstanding the development of these technologies has taken place with little or no interaction between the private companies providing these notifications and UK Policing. The Head of Contact Management has since engaged with the Chair of the National Contact Management Support Group, who has confirmed receipt of the coroner’s PDFN. A copy of the Constabulary’s Toolkit has been shared and it is now being used to further national discussion on the subject.”

Source location

Response from Hampshire Constabulary
Page 2 · response
Published 13 September 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