Response to concern for welfare call - Metropolitan Police Service, April 2017
On 12 April 2017 at 5.51am, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) was contacted by British Telecom. They had received a call from an unknown caller appearing to ask for help. An address associated with the landline from which the call came was identified. The call handler who dealt with this graded the call as needing attendance within an hour. They also asked the ambulance service to attend. Police officers were sent to check on the caller’s welfare and arrived shortly after 6am. They were unable to access information about the call and nature of the incident. They were only told they were doing a welfare check on an elderly person. They rang all the buzzers at the communal door of the address but could not gain access. After requesting intelligence checks on the address, they considered they didn’t have enough information to force entry. They cancelled the ambulance. The police unit left and the MPS continued attempts to contact the original caller. After no response, the incident log was closed.
On 14 April 2017 at 9.09pm, the MPS was contacted by the daughter of the person who made the initial call. The daughter was concerned as she had not heard from her mother since 11 April 2017. A police unit attended and was able to gain entry to the woman’s flat through the back door, which was closed but unlocked. They found the woman dead in her flat. A post-mortem later recorded the cause of death as heart disease.
During the investigation, investigators interviewed the call handlers, despatchers and obtained statements from attending police officers.
The Investigator formed the opinion that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find gross misconduct for one call staff member for incorrectly grading the first call and recording incorrect and insufficient information; and misconduct for another call staff member for carrying out incomplete checks on the caller’s address when officers attended on 12 April.
After reviewing our report, the MPS agreed with our findings. The call staff member who took the original call resigned before the gross misconduct hearing, so no further action could be taken against them. A misconduct meeting was held for the second call staff. They were given informal management action, with an emphasis on further coaching and relevant training.