Absence of smoke alarms in dwelling
Leeds City Council received 2 coroners' reports about this hazard between 17 Jan 2014 and 23 Jun 2021.
They came from 2 different coroners in 2 coroner areas. A similar concern was raised again 1 time after the first warning.
A published response was found for 1 of the 1 earlier reports, stating 1 specific action.
The story, report by report
Spacing grows with the time between reports.
“there were no smoke alarms fitted to the property.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Leeds City Council responded, stating 1 specific action.Response (PDF) ↗
“The coroner has reported that there is a risk of future deaths owing to the fact that there were no smoke detectors fitted to the property. A partial re-wire had taken place in 2008, but no hard wired detection equipment installed, as per the existing Electrical Specification (in which hard-wired smoke detectors are only required to be installed as part of a full re-wire).”
Stated timescale: April 2014 to March 2015
- 7 years 5 months laterClosely relatedConfidence 0.90 · higha different coroner
“there appeared to be no process in place to check premises had heating, running water or smoke alarms and therefore was fit and safe for a vulnerable person to return to”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Repeated from the earlier report:smokealarms
Leeds City Council responded.Response (PDF) ↗
- All reports to Leeds City Council
Each row is one judged link between an earlier and a later report. Open a row to read both quotes, found word for word in the originals.
2014 → 2021Netlyn Robinson7 years 5 months after Julie Ann Camm · different coronerClosely relatedConfidence 0.90 · high
Closely relatedConfidence 0.90 · highBoth reports highlight the absence of smoke alarms in a dwelling occupied by a vulnerable person. The later report adds that there is no process to verify the presence of alarms (along with heating and water) before allowing return.
Julie Ann Camm · 17 Jan 2014
“there were no smoke alarms fitted to the property.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Netlyn Robinson · 23 Jun 2021
“there appeared to be no process in place to check premises had heating, running water or smoke alarms and therefore was fit and safe for a vulnerable person to return to”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Stated action in the response to the earlier report
“The coroner has reported that there is a risk of future deaths owing to the fact that there were no smoke detectors fitted to the property. A partial re-wire had taken place in 2008, but no hard wired detection equipment installed, as per the existing Electrical Specification (in which hard-wired smoke detectors are only required to be installed as part of a full re-wire).”
Stated action · timescale: April 2014 to March 2015
“The coroner has reported that there is a risk of future deaths owing to the fact that there were no smoke detectors fitted to the property. A partial re-wire had taken place in 2008, but no hard wired detection equipment installed, as per the existing Electrical Specification (in which hard-wired smoke detectors are only required to be installed as part of a full re-wire).”
No specific action could be extracted with a verified quote.
- Each report's concerns were extracted by Nemotron 3 Nano on Nebius Token Factory, each with a quote copied from the report.
- Concerns from reports to Leeds City Council at least six months apart were compared by meaning (Qwen3 embeddings) and wording (TF-IDF).
- The closest pairs were judged by Nemotron 3 Super with reasoning on. Only identical or closely related, with confidence of at least 0.70, are shown.
- Every quote was checked by code as an exact substring of the original text. Names of staff and family are redacted, and the deceased are named by report title only.
| Link | Meaning | Wording | Judge | Coroner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 → 2021 | 0.68 | 0.19 | Closely related · 0.90 | different |
Judge model: nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b. How Nemotron did the work · Full methodology.
Next
Other chains for Leeds City Council
This shows that a similar concern was raised again after an earlier report. It does not say why, and it is not a finding about any organisation or person. To report an error, see the corrections route.