Fire deaths, January August 2014

(1)

1

Appendix 5

Fire deaths, January – August 2014

Details LSP5 impact statement

Waltham Forest; 24 January 2014

Mr A is believed to have been 39 years old and from the Ukraine. He was homeless and sleeping rough in a derelict sports pavilion. The Brigade were called after a scout group leader discovered smoke issuing from the building. He investigated and found thick black smoke coming from an open door to the property. Due to the extent of the fire it is likely that Mr A had already died before the Brigade were alerted.

The venue was known to the local authority as being used for rough sleeping. They had made previous attempts to restrict access. Utility supplies had been isolated to the property and candles were being used as a light source. The fire is believed to have been caused by careless disposal of smoking materials or careless use of a candle.

Officers are working with local partners to proactively identify those living in dwellings unsuitable for use as accommodation, aiming to raise fire safety awareness and reduce risk.

This incident is not believed to have any LSP5 impact factors.

Barking and Dagenham; 6 February 2014

Mr B was 66 years old and lived alone in his privately owned terrace house. Mr B slept in the living room and rented out two other rooms. Neither Mr B nor the property were known to either the local authority or the Brigade.

Mr B was known to regularly consume alcohol and he was a heavy smoker, with evidence of widespread careless disposal of EU compliant fire safer cigarettes and smoking materials. The room where Mr B resided was unkempt.

The fire occurred on the ground floor of the property and was well developed when discovered by one of the tenants returning home. Mr B had suffered serious burns and smoke inhalation when rescued by Brigade fire crews. He was subsequently admitted to a specialist burns unit at a Chelmsford hospital where he died two days later.

The cause of fire was careless disposal of smoking materials onto an accumulation of papers, waste materials and clothing within the room.

Mr B met the criteria of a priority person, however he did not live in a priority postcode. The property did not have any smoke detection in place to provide the vital early warning of a fire. Mr B was at an increased risk from fire. Brigade officers believe he would have benefitted from the provision of smoke alarms and a domestic sprinkler system, together with advice about the increased fire risks associated with his smoking habits.

(2)

2

Greenwich; 23 February 2014

Mr C was 83 years old and lived alone in his privately owned first floor flat. Mr C had been diagnosed with cancer and received treatment several years ago. He also suffered from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease but was very independent and reluctant to accept any care intervention.

The flat was cluttered with significant levels of hoarded materials in the kitchen, living room and bedroom. The management company of the block of flats were aware of Mr C’s hoarding behaviour and advised Mr C’s nephews, who cleared the flat whilst he was in hospital being treated for cancer. But his hoarding behaviour returned soon afterwards. There was no water supply to his bathroom. The incident occurred in the bedroom of the flat and was discovered by neighbours living in the flat above, when smoke had started to enter their flat. Mr C was found unconscious and was removed by fire crews who administered first aid until the arrival of London Ambulance Service (LAS). He was admitted to Hospital where he died four days later.

The cause of the fire was the ignition of combustible items due to radiated heat from the halogen heater coming into contact with clothing and papers. Mr C met the criteria of a priority person but did not live in a priority postcode. Mr C was not known to Social Services or the Brigade. There was no smoke detection within the property but evidence suggests that Mr C had attempted to extinguish it before being overcome by smoke and fire gases. Single point detectors were fitted in the communal areas of the building and actuated at the time of the fire.

There has been some speculation about whether this fire death was a consequence of the closure of Woolwich fire station.

Prior to its closure, an appliance from Woolwich fire station would have arrived at the address of this incident in around 6 minutes. But so too, or quicker, would an appliance from Plumstead. In fact, an appliance from Plumstead took 4 minutes and 55 seconds to arrive from mobilisation. However, a rare local fault in the mobilisation on this occasion delayed their start..

The actual arrival times of appliances and where they came from, in order of arrival, were:

• From Eltham, in 7:42 minutes

• From Plumstead, in 4:55 minutes (but with the delayed start)

• From East Greenwich, in 9:05 minutes

• From Plumstead, in no more than 8:24 minutes (but with the

delayed start). Fire crews report that they were quicker than this, but they also report that there was a difficulty in recording their arrival time.

In the light of the commentary around this incident, the Fire Investigation (FI) Team were asked to review the data and circumstances of accidental dwelling fires during the past three years. Fourteen deaths provided relevant comparators to the circumstances of this death. The FI analysis found that there was no direct correlation between the attendance time of the first fire engine and the survivability of the victim that indicated that a quicker attendance improved the chance of survival. There is obviously no suggestion that a delayed attendance of the first fire engine does not potentially increase the risk to any persons involved in a fire, but there are many more variables that would influence the outcome of such an incident. Variables which could affect the outcome include the age, health and lifestyle of the person involved; how long the person involved had been interacting with the fire prior to rescue; what was burning in the fire (e.g. fire gases asphyxiating or poisoning, or both) and other factors, such as pre-existing health conditions of the person involved; the persons vulnerability to smoke inhalation (which could be affected by whether or not the person smokes); the length of time the person had been interacting with the fire/products of the fire prior to the time of call; etc.

In the case of this death, it would appear that there were several key factors aside from the attendance time which were significant. For example, the lack of a smoke alarm and that Mr C apparently tried to fight the fire rather than raising the alarm. The fire was not detected (and reported) until a neighbour on the floor above noted smoke entering their flat.

An inquest will have been held by the time that this report is discussed at the Authority.

(3)

3

Westminster; 7 March 2014

Mr B was an 85 years old retired builder who lived alone in his two bedroom flat within a sheltered housing block. Mr B suffered from mobility difficulties for which he used a Zimmer frame. Due to his deteriorating health he had become house bound spending most of his time in bed or in the chair next to his bed.

A formal care plan was provided by Housing 21 which consisted of three visits per day. Fire retardant bedding was provided as part of his care plan. Mr B was a smoker and there was evidence of previous careless disposal of fire safer cigarettes and smoking materials.

The fire started between the bed and the armchair and was caused by careless disposal of smoking materials. Mr B had suffered serious burns and smoke inhalation when rescued by Brigade fire crews. Mr B was admitted to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital where he died the following day.

The property was fitted with a hardwired smoke detector which was linked to a call monitoring centre. The alarm actuated at the time of the fire, alerting the call centre staff but there was a delay in attempting to call the Brigade (and it is this kind of experience which has prompted the Telecare programme of work announced in LSP5). The call was further delayed because the operator alerted the London Ambulance Service instead of the Brigade. The first call to the Brigade came from a nearby public house.

Mr B met the criteria of a priority person, lived in a priority postcode and was known to the Brigade due to a previous fire in the property caused by cooking. He subsequently received a home fire safety visit. Officers believe that he would have benefitted from additional fire safety interventions, such as the installation of a domestic sprinkler system.

Newham; 16 March 2014

Mr G was 37 years old and from Lithuania. Mr G lived in a privately rented mid terraced house of two floors and three bedrooms which he shared with three other tenants.

Mr G was a smoker and evidence provided by one of the tenants, indicated that Mr G had been drinking for several hours before the fire.

The room of origin of the fire was the rear bedroom, however, Mr G was found unconscious in his bedroom at the front of the property which was not directly affected by the fire. He was rescued by Brigade fire crews and taken to the Royal London Hospital by Helicopter Emergency Medical Services. But unfortunately he died 6 days later.

The cause of the fire has been determined as an accidental event, either through overheating or defective laptop batteries, or careless disposal of smoking materials.

Mr G did not meet the criteria of a priority person and did not live in a priority postcode. Mr G was not known to the Brigade and no smoke detection was found in the property. A smoke detector would have given early warning of the fire and raised the alarm.

(4)

4

Redbridge; 17 March 2014

Mr Q was 54 years old and lived alone in a privately rented ground floor flat. The property consisted of a semi detached two-storey house which was converted into two flats without the authorisation of the Local Authority Building Control.

Mr Q suffered from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and had been recently released from King George’s Hospital. Mr Q was a heavy smoker and there was evidence of careless disposal of cigarettes and smoking materials.

The fire started in the living room of the ground floor flat which Mr Q occupied. Mr Q was discovered breathing but unconscious in the communal hallway. He had been trying to escape the fire but was overcome by smoke. He was rescued by Brigade fire crews who commenced first aid and provided oxygen administration until a medical team from the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) arrived and took responsibility for treating Mr Q. He was admitted to Royal London Hospital where he died 4 days later. The most probable cause of the fire was overloading of an electrical cable reel used to provide power to heaters and other electrical items in the room.

Mr Q did not meet the criteria of a priority person and did not live in a priority postcode. The property was fitted with a mains operated smoke detector which was actuating when the first crew arrived. Officers believe that he would have benefitted from a home fire safety visit and advice about basic home electrical safety and the increased fire risks associated with his smoking habits.

(5)

5

Hackney; 25 March 2014

Mr A was 78 years old and lived alone in a ground floor flat owned by the London Borough of Hackney and managed and maintained by Hackney Homes. He suffered from a number of chronic and debilitating health problems and had mobility issues for which he used a wheelchair. Prior to retirement he had worked as a taxi driver.

Mr A’s allocated carer arrived at his address for a routine visit and was unable to gain entry to the property. Neighbours said that Mr A hadn’t been seen for a couple of weeks and the police were called. The police forced entry to the property and Mr A was found in his wheelchair. It appeared he had been dead for some time. Noting that the room had heat and fire damage, the police officer requested the attendance of the Brigade. The London Ambulance Service arrived at the incident and confirmed that Mr A was deceased.

Mr A was known to Social Services but was reluctant to accept help from carers. Social Services had arranged for mental capacity assessments to be undertaken in order to confirm Mr A’s ability to make his own decisions regarding his care. As the assessments have indicated that Mr A had the capacity to make his decisions, it was very difficult to enable the changes required to improve Mr A’s lifestyle. However, case records indicate that there was monthly contact from several agencies with regard to his medical, housing and personal care and that Mr A was being considered for a placement in a supported living scheme.

The most probable cause of the fire is a candle igniting items placed on a sofa in the living room but the fire was not discovered for some time and had burned itself out.

Mr A met the criteria of a priority person but did not live in a priority postcode. There was no smoke detection or Telecare monitoring system in place.

A programme of installation of hard wired smoke alarm systems in the estate where Mr A lived was due to start in April 2014. Officers believe that Mr A would have benefitted from additional fire safety interventions, such as the installation of a domestic sprinkler system.

(6)

6

Barnet; 31 March 2014

Mr C was 48 years old. He was apparently due to appear in family court at 10:00 hours on the date of the incident for a hearing concerning his foster children.

London Ambulance Service and the Brigade were requested to attend the incident involving a man found apparently dead in a car, by the police due to the strong smell of petrol. When fire crews arrived they were made aware of a fatality in the driver’s seat of the car.

There was a cigarette lighter at his feet and a petrol can in the passenger foot well with the cap removed.

The most probable cause of the fire was the ignition of

hydrocarbon vapours by a naked flame. It is most likely that this was a deliberate act.

Lewisham; 12 April 2014

Mr M was 64 years old and lived alone in his one bedroom maisonette owned by Hyde Housing. He was known to Social Services and had previously been in receipt of a care package until November 2012.

Mr M smoked and was a heavy user of alcohol. His property was cluttered, with careless disposal of matches, cigarettes and candles apparent throughout. Mr M had been without electricity for a period of six weeks, as he had reportedly lost his meter payment key. He used candles and kept a gas cooker ring constantly on to provide substitute lighting and to light cigarettes.

Brigade fire crews were initially but wrongly called to a fire at a neighbouring address. After further investigation, they discovered a fire at Mr M’s property and found him unconscious and not breathing. He was rescued by Brigade fire crews but had suffered from smoke inhalation and serious burns. Mr M was admitted to hospital and was transferred to the specialist burns unit at Broomfield Hospital where he died nine days later.

The fire was most probably caused by a candle placed in a drinks can next to his bed igniting combustible materials, although smoking materials have not been ruled out.

Mr M was not known to the Brigade, but was known to several other agencies including the Local Authority and Hyde Homes. Mr M was also known to a Reviewing Officer from Lewisham Hospital, as his vulnerability was under review, however he had resisted previous offers of assistance.

Mr M met the criteria of a priority person and lived in a priority postcode area. The property was fitted with a hard wired smoke detector in the hall and a heat detector in the kitchen, which did not activate at the time of the fire. Officers believe that he would have benefitted from a home fire safety visit, advice about the need to ensure that candles are used safely, and the installation of a working smoke alarm, which would have alerted Mr M to the presence of the fire. Mr M may have also benefitted from Fire Retardant bedding.

(7)

7

Croydon; 19 April 2014

Mr McB was 80 years old and lived alone in his privately owned semi detached house. Mr McB was a well liked member of the community and had worked as a dance teacher up until five years ago when he sustained a broken ankle, which led to his poor mobility. He was reported to only leave his home twice a week. Mr McB was not in receipt of a formal care package, however he received support from friends who lived nearby and was in receipt of meals on wheels.

The fire is believed to have started on or near the sofa in the rear ground floor sitting room. Evidence indicates that Mr McB attempted to escape the fire but was overcome by smoke. He was discovered unconscious and not breathing in the rear bedroom on the first floor. He was rescued by Brigade fire crews who

administered CPR until relieved by London Ambulance Service. Mr McB was admitted to St Georges Hospital in Tooting where he died later that day.

Mr McB was a heavy smoker and there was evidence of smoking materials throughout the property, which were fire safer

cigarettes. The most probable cause of the fire was careless disposal of smoking materials.

Mr McB wore a telecare pendant alarm provided by Croydon Careline. The telecare alarm was not activated at the time of the fire and was not linked to smoke detectors. The property was fitted with two battery operated and two hard wired smoke alarms. Both battery smoke alarms were without batteries and it cannot be confirmed if the hard wired alarms actuated. Mr McB met the criteria of a priority person but did not live in a priority postcode area. Mr Mc B was known to the Brigade and a home fire safety visit was carried out in the property in 2007. The poor construction (following an extension to the property) in the floor/ceiling area between the rear lounge and bedroom above where the deceased was found, was clearly a factor in this incident. The gap around where the reinforcing steel had been installed, enabled fire gasses to percolate into the bedroom above. It is not known when this building work had been carried out.

Brigade officers believe that Mr McB would have benefitted from additional fire safety interventions to minimise risk such as domestic sprinklers. If the telecare system had been interlinked with the smoke alarms and to a call monitoring centre, assistance could have been summoned more quickly.

(8)

8

Waltham Forest; 17 May 2014

Mr S was 74 years old and lived alone in a one bedroom flat owned by Ascham Homes. He had lived independently at the property for 18 years and received weekly visits from a friend. Mr S had previously worked as a foreman for Yardley’s Perfume and had also worked part time in the meat industry before retiring.

Evidence suggests that Mr S suffered from gout, and had mobility difficulties.

Police were called to the property by Mr S’s friend who raised concerns after getting no response from the intercom/door entry system. Mr S’s body was found in a chair by Police who forced entry into the property. Noting that the cooker was emitting gas, the Police isolated the supply and called the Brigade. On arrival, Brigade fire crews found the kitchen cool, suggesting that the fire had occurred the night before.

The most probable cause of the fire was cooking which had been left unattended. The injuries sustained by Mr S suggest that he had tried to tackle the fire before collapsing in his chair.

Mr S met the criteria of a priority person and lived in a priority postcode. He was not in receipt of a formal care plan and he was not known by the Brigade. The flat was fitted with a mains powered smoke alarm. The back up battery had been removed from the alarm but we cannot confirm whether the alarm actuated at the time of the fire.

Officers believe Mr S would have benefitted from a home fire safety visit providing tailored advice on how to prevent fires and what to do if a fire happens along with the free installation of a smoke alarm.

(9)

9

Harrow; 14 June 2014

Miss S was a 35 years old Jamaican National. Miss S lived alone in a dwelling which was in private ownership but where some of the accommodation had been converted to rented accommodation. It is believed that some of the conversion work in the house had not received planning consent.

Miss S had been unemployed for two years and was going through an immigration tribunal. Her solicitor had recently spoken to her and stated that she seemed of “good mind”. Miss S’ family stated that she was a very private person and did not have many friends.

The fire was multi seated. They occurred during the night in the kitchen, on the landing and in Miss S’ bedroom. The fires were discovered by another tenant on returning home. She called the Police who then informed the Brigade and LAS. Miss S was found in the bathroom but had died prior to the Brigade’s arrival. Miss S was not known to the Brigade or to any social care agencies and did not meet the criteria for a priority person, however she did live in a priority postcode area. The property was fitted with two single point battery powered smoke alarms on the ground floor and first floor landings but they did not actuate at the time of the fire. One had the battery removed. Police are investigating the incident, although it may turn out to be suicide.

Waltham Forest; 1 July 2014

Mrs J was 56 years old and lived with her husband in their privately owned mid terraced house. They had returned from Sri Lanka three years ago, having lived there for three years. Mrs J occasionally worked as a volunteer.

The fire occurred on the ground floor underneath an open tread staircase and was discovered by the occupants when they heard a loud bang and went to investigate. Mrs J went to the front bedroom and shouted from the window to alert neighbours. Neighbours alerted the Brigade but the fire had spread rapidly up the stairs trapping Mrs J in the front bedroom and cutting her off from her husband who managed to escape by jumping from the rear bedroom window. Mrs J was found in the front bedroom but had sadly died prior to the Brigade’s arrival. The cause of the fire is believed to be as the result of a fault in a BEKO fridge freezer that was subject of a product recall.

Mrs J did not meet the criteria of a priority person, did not live in a priority post code, and was not known to the Brigade or any other agencies. No smoke detection was found in the property.

Officers believe that Mrs J would have benefitted from a home fire safety visit providing tailored advice on what to do if a fire happens along with the installation of free smoke alarms. This could have provided an earlier warning of the fire and provided time for Mrs J to escape.

(10)

10

Ealing; 8 July 2014

Mr N was a 56 year old Sri Lankan national who moved to the UK in 1991. Mr N suffered through a series of unfortunate events starting in January 2010 that included losing his job and periods of homelessness. Initially he was able to obtain accommodation with the assistance of Slough Refugee Support but was then admitted to hospital and lost his accommodation. On leaving hospital he was homeless and resorted to rough sleeping. In October 2010 he was readmitted to hospital and diagnosed with diabetes that required regular injections of insulin. On being discharged he was placed in a night shelter but this closed in November 2010 and he presented as homeless to Slough Council. They did not assist him as he did not have a connection with Slough. In May 2011 he presented himself as homeless to Ealing council and in July 2011 Mr N was placed in a four room flat in a housing block which was owned by Safe Haven, a charitable scheme of Ealing council.

Mr N took prescription drugs to manage his medical conditions and to treat insomnia. He also regularly drank alcohol. Mr N used tea lights, candles and incense sticks, and a £50 electricity

prepayment meter debit suggests that Mr N may have been using the candles for substitute lighting. Mr N smoked fire safer

cigarettes and there was evidence of previous careless disposal of cigarettes. Housekeeping within his home was poor, and he had again come to the attention of Social Services in December 2013 when concerns were raised regarding his health and living conditions.

The fire is believed to have started between the bed and radiator area, with the most probable cause being careless use of tea light candles in close proximity to the bed. Mr N’s neighbour alerted the Brigade when he was woken by the sound of a smoke alarm. Brigade fire crews forced entry to the flat, found a fire in the bedroom and located Mr N on the bed. Brigade fire crews rescued Mr N and commenced CPR but he was pronounced dead at the scene by the London Ambulance Service.

Mr N met the criteria of a priority person and lived in a priority postcode. Two hard wired battery back up smoke alarms were present, but there were no smoke detection in the room where he slept. A home fire safety visit was carried out at this address in April 2009 but Mr N was not living at the address at that time. Brigade Officers believed that Mr N’s high risk characteristics put him at significant risk of experiencing a fire and not being able to react quickly to it. He would have particularly benefitted from home fire safety advice alongside the installation of a monitored automatic fire suppression system, and if such provision had been in place he may not have died.

(11)

11

Bromley; 16 July 2014

Mr C was 90 years old and lived alone in a comfortable and well attended, privately owned two bedroom flat. His wife had moved into residential care approximately two years before the fire. Prior to retirement he was a railway worker.

Mr C suffered from multiple health issues including Diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and chronic leg ulcers. He used a Zimmer frame and had several falls. He was discharged from hospital nine days before the fire and as a result of his declining health, he was effectively confined to bed since the previous Monday. Mr C was in receipt of a formal care plan provided by Care Watch UK. This consisted of three visits per day, including a daily visit from the district nurse, he was also supported by neighbours.

The Brigade were called after a neighbour had been alerted by the smoke alarm operating. The neighbour gained entry into the flat using a spare key, and attempted to fight the fire before calling the Brigade. When the Emergency Fire Crews arrived (this incident happened during a strike period) a fully developed fire was present. Emergency Fire crews located Mr C in the bedroom but he had already died. The most probable cause of the fire is careless disposal of smoking materials coming into contact with bedding and textiles on the bed.

Mr C met the criteria of a priority person, however he did not live in a priority postcode area but was known to the Brigade as he had been referred by Age Concern for a home fire safety visit which took place in May 2012. Fire crews provided fire safety advice and two smoke alarms were fitted.

As Mr C was now confined to bed, Brigade officers believe that he would have benefitted from the provision of a telecare system with smoke alarms linked to a call monitoring centre to quickly summon assistance, together with a automatic fire suppression system to attack the fire. Mr C provides a prime example of the type of person that could have had a much better assessment of his risk from fire.

This incident occurred during a strike and was attended by Emergency Fire Crews.

An inquest was held on 18 November 2014. The Coroner’s conclusion was that the fire was not survivable regardless of the industrial action, attendance times and crew actions.

(12)

12

Lewisham; 17 July 2014

Mrs S was 57 years old and lived alone in her well kept privately owned mid terrace house in the London borough of Lewisham. She had previously worked as a Children’s Services Officer for the London borough of Tower Hamlets before being made redundant. Mrs S’ family reported that she had been suffering from

depression following her redundancy. They also stated that she had visited her GP, but had refused further support.

Three fires had occurred in the property and all had self

extinguished. The first fire took place in the storage area on the second floor of the property. The daughter of Mrs S reported that this fire had occurred in March of this year, however this was not reported to the Brigade. Two further fires were started in the ground floor living room and in the rear bedroom on the first floor. They are believed to have taken place on the day prior to the discovery of Mrs S’ Body by family members.

The most probable cause of fire was the application of a naked flame to curtains on the ground floor and/or a mattress in the rear bedroom on the first floor. It is believed to be a deliberate act by Mrs S.

Mrs S did not meet the criteria of a priority person, did not live in a priority postcode area and was not known to the Brigade. There was no smoke detection fitted in the property to provide the early warning of fire, although four new and unused smoke alarms where found in a box in the kitchen.

This was a sad death involving a relatively young woman suffering from depression. Her death was probably caused by smoke inhalation, but the fire was completely over by the time the Brigade was called.

(13)

13

Kingston-upon-Thames; 27 July 2014

Mrs W was 90 years old and lived with her husband who was also 90 years old in their privately owned semi detached house. They had lived there for over 50 years, celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary in 2011. Following a fall in May 2011, Mrs W could no longer walk unaided and she would use a number of walking aids including a walking stick and a wheelchair to move around the home. Due to the mobility issues also experienced by her

husband, the family had arranged a formal care plan to provide additional support for Mrs W. This consisted of three visits per day and was delivered by Bluebird Care agency.

The fire took place in the conservatory to the rear and a neighbour alerted to the fire bravely rescued Mr W from the conservatory. The fire spread rapidly and was fully developed when Brigade fire crews arrived. Mrs W was located in the lounge but she had already died. The most probable cause of the fire has been determined as an accident involving a portable fish smoker fuelled by methylated spirits.

The Brigade had carried out a home fire safety visit to the property in December 2005 where fire safety advice was provided and smoke detection was fitted, but no mobility issues were noted at that time. A working smoke alarm was found after the fire and it was reported that it had actuated at the time of the fire.

Mrs W did not meet the profile of a priority person, but the profile of the household exhibited an increased risk of fire. The property was not within a priority postcode. Brigade officers are working with partners to emphasis the importance of periodic

re-assessment of fire risk, especially to those with declining health who may be particularly vulnerable to experiencing a fire or escaping from it. Officers believe that Mrs W would have

benefitted from a home fire safety visit with specific advice on how to reduce the risk of fire and the provision of a tailored escape plan.

(14)

14

Hounslow; 31 July 2014

Mr M was 57 years old and lived alone in his flat within “extra care sheltered accommodation”. Mr M had moved into his flat in March 2014, which had been specifically adapted to meet his individual needs. The accommodation is owned and managed by Housing and Care 21 who provide a full-time on-site manager and 24 hour care.

Mr M suffered from multiple sclerosis and he was confined to a wheelchair. He was well liked by staff who described him as cheerful despite the challenges his medical condition presented. He enjoyed the support of family members who visited him regularly. A care package consisting of four visits per day was in place and delivered by Hounslow Council, and he wore a telecare pendant linked to the telecare system, which was monitored by on site care staff 24 hours a day. His flat was also fitted with a smoke detector in the hall and a heat detector in the kitchen which were linked to the Tunstall system.

Mr M smoked and there was evidence of previous careless disposal of cigarettes both on his furniture and his clothing. When the fire was discovered staff at the establishment failed to contact the Brigade; the Brigade attendance was as a result of a call from LAS . This resulted in a delayed response. The most likely cause of the fire is a lit cigarette being dropped onto the seat of Mr M’s wheelchair.

The Brigade issued a “Notice of Deficiency”(under the RRO) in 2008, 2011 and 2013, but not for issues directly related to the event of the incident. As a result of this incident, officers are currently considering whether any further fire safety enforcement action should be taken.

Mr M met the criteria of a priority person and lived in a priority postcode. Mr M was not known to the Brigade, however officers believe that he would have benefitted from additional fire safety interventions such as a home fire safety visit with tailored advice around his safer smoking, the provision of a fire retardant throw or blanket, and the installation of a domestic sprinkler system.

Ealing; 18 August 2014

Mr G was 28 years old and was found dead in a cemetery. According to reports provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, Mr G, his wife and young child had moved back in with his parents after he had become unemployed.

The fire was discovered by local residents who contacted the London Ambulance Service. After obtaining further information the call was passed to Brigade Control. When Brigade fire crews arrived they found the body of Mr G on a grass verge. He was pronounced ‘life extinct’ by attending paramedics from the LAS. Fire Investigation were requested to attend the scene.

A cigarette lighter and a petrol can were found at the scene. The most probable cause of the fire was the ignition of hydrocarbon vapours by a naked flame. It is most likely that this was a deliberate act and no third party involvement is suspected.

(15)

15

Enfield; 24 August 2014

Miss T-A was 32 years old and lived with her parents and brother in a privately owned four bedroom semi-detached property. The family have lived at this address for over 27 years.

The fire occurred on the ground floor, in the front porch area of the property, and was discovered by Miss T-A’s mother. The Brigade were alerted as attempts were bring made to extinguish the fire. Three family members managed to escape before the arrival of fire crews. The fire spread rapidly throughout the house, isolating Miss T-A who was asleep at the time, from her family. Brigade fire crews rescued Miss T-A from her bedroom but she was unconscious and not breathing. Despite being resuscitated by the attending emergency services personnel, she died in hospital four days later.

The Police are leading the investigation to establish the most likely cause of fire.

The property was not within a priority postcode area and Miss T-A did not meet the profile of a priority person. The family was not known to the Brigade and no smoke detection was found in the property. Smoke Detection would have given early warning of the fire and raised the alarm.