Response to a call reporting concern for someone’s welfare - Hertfordshire Constabulary and Cambridgeshire Constabulary, January 2018

On 13 January 2018, a woman called 999 and informed the call operator in Hertfordshire Constabulary’s control room that she was concerned about her sister’s whereabouts and welfare, and explained that she had a history of mental health concerns. The call operator graded the call as ‘prompt’ and categorised it as a ‘concern for welfare’.

Hertfordshire Constabulary took various initial actions and started liaising with other forces including Essex Police, the Metropolitan Police Service, and Cambridgeshire Constabulary (where the missing woman lived).The incident logs show numerous discussions between Hertfordshire Constabulary and Cambridgeshire Constabulary regarding the responsibility for searching for the woman. A missing person’s report was completed identifying the investigation as high risk.

Cambridgeshire Constabulary agreed to take the lead role at 1.47am. Actions were carried out by or allocated to officers through the night and, following the completion of mobile phone work, Hertfordshire Constabulary officers searched hotels near to the last location where the woman’s mobile phone had been active.

At 8.53am police were alerted by Fire Services that the woman had been found unconscious in her car in a car park in Hertfordshire, having taken an overdose of pills. She was taken to hospital and has since made a full recovery.

During the investigation, our investigators obtained force control room incident logs, witness statements from officers and call handling staff, and from relatives. Our investigators also obtained call recordings and call handling policies and procedures.

The evidence obtained showed there were numerous discussions between Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire Constabularies regarding responsibility for the missing person investigation during the night, and it was recognised by senior officers after the incident that Hertfordshire Constabulary should have taken the lead role.

However, it was accepted that this did not appear to have had a significant impact on the actions that were completed. Furthermore, while the evidence showed the call handler incorrectly categorised the call as a concern for welfare (rather than a missing person report), they completed numerous actions expediently and approached their supervisor for advice.

Based on the evidence available we found no indication that any person serving with the police may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, or had committed a criminal offence.