Canon Frost
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2018-0362
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 21 Jun 2019
Response Status
Responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
21 Jun 2019
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Coroners Concerns
the MATTERS OF CONCERN as follows: There is a clearly identifiable history that Canon Frost had become prone to falls and was unsteady on his feet.
2. Photographic evidence produced during the inquest of Canon Frost clearly demonstrates that the floor tiles in his kitchen had become loose and were no longer fastened to the floor: One of the floor tiles is completely out of position the others appear to be loose with large gaps between the tiles themselves. In his witness statementl Icommented "the flooring where Canon Frost would have fallen was very loose and have been & trip hazard for Canon Frost Considering his frailty, the fact he lived alone and the medical conditions suffered by Canon Frost; on the available evidence this flooring was clearly not safe by any measure. In evidence it was heard that the flooring is sufficiently poor that it will need to be replaced prior to the re-occupation/sale of the property_ Evidence heard that the Bishop of each diocese is responsible under 'canon law' for accommodating retired priests of the diocese; This is generally done ona 'grace and favour' tenancy of a diocesan owned_property. There isno 30th they: day pool dining being and could_
Tegal agreement for the occupation, but the general understanding is that the diocese provides the property and the retired priest is responsible for paying for all the service and maintaining the property: The retired receives an annual payment to cover the costs of services charges and general maintenance_ It was heard that this is common practice in the 22 Roman Catholic dioceses of England and Wales_ It was heard in evidence that the diocese had a system of visits in place from the Clergy Welfare Officer and, if the retired priest was subject to a 'covenant of care' a Safeguarding Coordinator: Details of visits to Canon Frost's home were recorded as taking place in October 2010, December 2010, January 2011, July 2011, May 2012, January 2013, April 2014, August 2014, July 2016 and October 2017 . In reports compiled in relation to these visits no mention is made of any health and safety or risk assessment activity being undertaken. A note from the October 2017 visit (11 months prior to Canon Frost's death) provides details of a recent fall in which Canon Frost fractured his hip, the fact he now used a walking frame and that his bedroom had been moved down stairs (following a visit from the Iocal NHS Community Health Team) The property manager offered Canon Frost a visit from the Clergy Welfare Coordinator but this was declined_ Despite identifying major factors regarding Canon Frost's mobility and increasing frailty, again no mention is made of any health and safety or risk assessment activity undertaken: Giving the nature of the residents of these properties there is a degree of certainty that other 'grace and favour' residents will lose (or have already lost) the physical ability or the mental capacity to maintain their accommodation in a safe condition. On the evidence heard the system of welfare checks was not sufficiently robust and there was no independent assessment for health and safety risks. It was apparent that the current system required the resident themselves, a family member or some other third party to raise such concerns when the fabric of the building is deteriorating_ The resident themselves would then need to request for the work to be undertaken:
10. Dependant on the personal circumstance of each retired member of the clergy this system appears flawed, as it relies solely on the resident retaining the mental capacity andlor the physical ability to identify that a hazard exists and then make their own request for repairs. Without doubt; the welfare system currently in place failed to identify and remedy the fact that an obvious and serious trip hazard risk was present in Canon Frost's home_
11. Given that this is the case am concerned that other residents of 'grace and favour' homes provided by the Bishop of each dioceses, may now also be living in premises that may no longer be considered safe for their occupation.
12. During the hearing a submission was made by the lawyer representing the diocese involved that as the Local Community Health Team had also visited the property they should be included in this notice to which agreed: member of the Local Community Health Team visited Canon Frost on one occasion (10ih November 2017) who may have seen the condition of the flooring; and if so may have been in & position to report it, However; as the owner of the home the primary responsibility for ensuring it is safe for occupation, in my falls to the Roman Catholic Church:
2. Photographic evidence produced during the inquest of Canon Frost clearly demonstrates that the floor tiles in his kitchen had become loose and were no longer fastened to the floor: One of the floor tiles is completely out of position the others appear to be loose with large gaps between the tiles themselves. In his witness statementl Icommented "the flooring where Canon Frost would have fallen was very loose and have been & trip hazard for Canon Frost Considering his frailty, the fact he lived alone and the medical conditions suffered by Canon Frost; on the available evidence this flooring was clearly not safe by any measure. In evidence it was heard that the flooring is sufficiently poor that it will need to be replaced prior to the re-occupation/sale of the property_ Evidence heard that the Bishop of each diocese is responsible under 'canon law' for accommodating retired priests of the diocese; This is generally done ona 'grace and favour' tenancy of a diocesan owned_property. There isno 30th they: day pool dining being and could_
Tegal agreement for the occupation, but the general understanding is that the diocese provides the property and the retired priest is responsible for paying for all the service and maintaining the property: The retired receives an annual payment to cover the costs of services charges and general maintenance_ It was heard that this is common practice in the 22 Roman Catholic dioceses of England and Wales_ It was heard in evidence that the diocese had a system of visits in place from the Clergy Welfare Officer and, if the retired priest was subject to a 'covenant of care' a Safeguarding Coordinator: Details of visits to Canon Frost's home were recorded as taking place in October 2010, December 2010, January 2011, July 2011, May 2012, January 2013, April 2014, August 2014, July 2016 and October 2017 . In reports compiled in relation to these visits no mention is made of any health and safety or risk assessment activity being undertaken. A note from the October 2017 visit (11 months prior to Canon Frost's death) provides details of a recent fall in which Canon Frost fractured his hip, the fact he now used a walking frame and that his bedroom had been moved down stairs (following a visit from the Iocal NHS Community Health Team) The property manager offered Canon Frost a visit from the Clergy Welfare Coordinator but this was declined_ Despite identifying major factors regarding Canon Frost's mobility and increasing frailty, again no mention is made of any health and safety or risk assessment activity undertaken: Giving the nature of the residents of these properties there is a degree of certainty that other 'grace and favour' residents will lose (or have already lost) the physical ability or the mental capacity to maintain their accommodation in a safe condition. On the evidence heard the system of welfare checks was not sufficiently robust and there was no independent assessment for health and safety risks. It was apparent that the current system required the resident themselves, a family member or some other third party to raise such concerns when the fabric of the building is deteriorating_ The resident themselves would then need to request for the work to be undertaken:
10. Dependant on the personal circumstance of each retired member of the clergy this system appears flawed, as it relies solely on the resident retaining the mental capacity andlor the physical ability to identify that a hazard exists and then make their own request for repairs. Without doubt; the welfare system currently in place failed to identify and remedy the fact that an obvious and serious trip hazard risk was present in Canon Frost's home_
11. Given that this is the case am concerned that other residents of 'grace and favour' homes provided by the Bishop of each dioceses, may now also be living in premises that may no longer be considered safe for their occupation.
12. During the hearing a submission was made by the lawyer representing the diocese involved that as the Local Community Health Team had also visited the property they should be included in this notice to which agreed: member of the Local Community Health Team visited Canon Frost on one occasion (10ih November 2017) who may have seen the condition of the flooring; and if so may have been in & position to report it, However; as the owner of the home the primary responsibility for ensuring it is safe for occupation, in my falls to the Roman Catholic Church:
Responses
Response received
View full response
Dear Sir; RE: Inquest Touching Upon the Death of Canon Frost We write in relation to the report you made at Ipswich Coroner's Court under Rule 28 of The Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 ` following the inquest into the death of Canon Brian Frost on 10th September 2018_ We are sorry for any in providing this response and are grateful for the extensions that you have kindly provided we say at the outset that this response to your Rule 28 report to prevent future deaths is provided by and on behalf of the Northampton Diocese and not Cardinal Vincent Nichols, one of the parties to whom the report was directed While we are aware that you directed your regulation 28 report to Cardinal Vincent Nichols, we respectfully suggest that the appropriate party to respond is the Diocese of Northampton and not Cardinal Nichols. We say that for the following reasons. The concerns you expressed relate to the way in which an individual diocese here the Diocese of Northampton conducted itself in relation to the well-being of retired priests occupying grace and favour properties As was explained at the Inquest; these types of arrangements are made on diocese by diocese basis and no overarching policy of wider applicability exists The fact that there is no such overarching policy is an inevitable consequence of the Way in which the Catholic Church in England and Wales is constituted: each diocese has and maintains its OWI individual arrangements. While the Archbishop of Westminster (Cardinal Nichols) is, as & matter of custom; elected President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, and s0 is the de facto spokesman fof the Catholic Church in England &nd Wales, he heads the Diocese of Westminster only: This is & distinct and separate diocese the Diocese of Northampton. It has its own approach towards the provision of grace and favouI The Northampton Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust Registercd Charity Number 234091 delay May being from
properties and welfare care for retired priests There has been no suggestion that the way in which the Diocese of Westminster discharged its function was lacking: The Bishop of Northampton is Bishop Peter Doyle; who was ordained as the twelfth Bishop of Northampton on Tuesday 28th June 2005 and is the spiritual head of the Diocese. The Diocese also operates by and through a number of separate departments that include: Administrative and Consultative and Vocations Diocesan Tribunal Ecumenism Education and Schools Finance and Property Human Resources Liturgy Commission Pastoral Ministry Office Pastoral Services While individual dioceses inevitably operate in a similar manner; their manner of operation is not identical and all have discretion in relation to the way in which attend to (for example) the welfare of retired priests. Of course, all dioceses are subject to canon law, but canon law is not prescriptive about the way in which arrangements such a8 the provision of maintenance and residence are devised and implemented We this is satisfactory and explains why this response is provided by the Diocese of Northampton and not Cardinal Nichols. Cardinal Nichols is interested and concerned about these matters, and our response to you will be shared with him. We will also endeavour to share the concerns that have arisen from this case, and our response to them;, across the other dioceses in England and Wales. By doing this, we that all necessary lessons may be learned by those to whom are applicable As regards the circumstances of this sad case: As you know Canon Brian Frost was ordained in 1950, served at St Joseph's Bedford the Cathedral, Leighton Buzzard, St Joseph's Luton for 14 years; Rushden for 11 years, then Kettering for three years before a brief spell at St Patricks Corby, where he retired in 1995. Asa retired clergyman he was provided with a grace and favour property at As you will appreciate, members of the are not employees and therefore the Diocese did not owe a under section 2(1) of the Health and at Work etc Act 1974 'HSWA 1974'). Even if any such duty is considered to have been owed, it is highly unlikely that it would have extended to his personal residence, where no work activities took place_ Of course , the Diocese accepts that it also has wider duties under (principally) section 3(1) HSWA 1974, which is the to ensure that non-employees are not exposed to risks to their health and safety from the conduct of an undertaking: The Diocese takes the view that the nature of its undertaking in connection with Canon Frost was limited indeed, there is strong argument for saying it was exercising no legal undertaking in relation to Canon Frost; Notwithstanding this, we will approach the matter on the basis that it was operating limited undertaking, which we suggest was no more than that of private landlord Or de facto landiord We say de facto landlord because no formal tenancy or licence was entered into as the property was provided on a grace and favour basis, but the Diocese accepts it was required to discharge the basic statutory functions of a private landlord These were principally the safe installation and maintenance of gas and electrical equipment; it did this: Northampton Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust Registered Charity Number 234091 Clergy they hope Having said this; hope they from clergy duty Safety duty arising The
Consistent with canon law and convention, the Diocese provided Canon Frost with a grace and favour residence for his natural life: It was not acting O purporting to act as & Care Retirement Home Or other supported provider. This was not its undertaking or function, nor did it have an obligation under canon law or other provision to exercise this undertaking or function_ As a landlord (OT de facto landlord) it had few other legal obligations, whether through the English law of real property or canon law in relation to the interior condition 0f the property. In particular; the Diocese does not accept it was in breach of any repairing obligations it may have had, certainly in the absence of specific indication that there was & problem with the floor tiles any It also had no other legal obligations in Ielation to the welfare of Canon Frost merely because he was retired priest of the Diocese; While it did ensure that & yearly pastoral visit was made to it was not thereby assuming 3 day to day responsibility to safeguard his welfare while resident at As you know certain other financial provision was made but this did not with it an obligation to ensure, for example; that nothing about the internal fabric of the house presented & to day risk Its duties towards securing the welfare of Canon Frost were in fact no more extensive and probably less extensive than those of the social services We are aware that you have included the Local Authority in your Rule 28 report: As was noted at the inquest; the Local Authority was fully aware of Canon Frost' $ health following his admission into the James Paget Hospital for the cataract operation and undertook a home assessmeng he was not in need of carers_ We are conscious of the fact that in asserting what the Diocese says were its legal obligations, it may appear harsh or in some way lacking in compassion. This is not the case: the Diocese always seeks to act with care and compassion to all acting Or retired and has regard for their pastoral care_ In essessing whether the Diocese did all it ought reasonably to have done in relation to Frost' s welfare; the Coroner is aware that the property at was Canon Frost's sister' $ and he was known to have strong family support in the area Wrignally accepted that Canon Frost was becoming frailer and less capable of for himself; the Diocese was entitled to think that any issues affecting the safety of his accommodation Would have been raised by Canon Frost'$ family, ifnot by Canon Frost himself If issues about his accommodation had been raised, there is no doubt the Diocese would have addressed them_ This would have been done by the Property and Finance Department or Northampton Priest's fund, which is separate fund. No such was ever raised, either by Canon Frost or by his family. The only request received from Canon Frost was in relation to payment for & cataract operation Which Was paid for from the Priest*s fund, said all of this, the Diocese acknowledges that @ state of affairs arose in connection with the property at that was unsatisfactory, and it will take all practicable steps to ensure that lessons are learned, and similar events do not occur in the future. The Diocese already taken steps to ensure that these events do not reoccur; as follows: The Diocese has reviewed its procedures for supporting retired Priests living in Diocesan accommodation; All Priests will continue to receive at least annual visits from the Diocesan Welfare Officer; but the Welfare Officer will bejoined on those visits by one of Diocesan Surveyors; The Northampton Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust Registered Charity Number 234091 Home; living him, bring day issues finding = yet clergy Canon house caring issue Having has Clergy the
The Surveyor will carry out a full external and internal assessment of property' s fabric and condition; together with a Health and Assessment informed by the advice of the Welfare Officer about the health and mobility of Priest; At the end of the survey the Surveyor , the Welfare Officer and the Priest will discuss the of the survey . repair works noted as needed Or recommended from a property or health and safety perspective will be agreed with the Priest and organised by the Surveyor; who wili agree with the Priest suitable times for access and will manage and approve the works The costs will be borne by the Diocese; Should the survey identify works that might assist a Priest in his occupation of the property (handrails, grab rails etc) the Surveyor and Welfare Officer will strongly recommend to the Priest that these are carried out and, if he agrees, the Surveyor will organise these as detailed above; IE the Priest does not agree to the recommended works then the Welfare Officer will escalate the issue to the Vicar General or Bishop to agree the next steps; and At the end of visit the Priest will be left cards showing office hours and out of office hours for both tle Welfare Officer and Surveyor in the event that property repairs become nceded We that all of this is satisfactory and addresses the concerns that prompted you to issue a Rule 28 Report;
properties and welfare care for retired priests There has been no suggestion that the way in which the Diocese of Westminster discharged its function was lacking: The Bishop of Northampton is Bishop Peter Doyle; who was ordained as the twelfth Bishop of Northampton on Tuesday 28th June 2005 and is the spiritual head of the Diocese. The Diocese also operates by and through a number of separate departments that include: Administrative and Consultative and Vocations Diocesan Tribunal Ecumenism Education and Schools Finance and Property Human Resources Liturgy Commission Pastoral Ministry Office Pastoral Services While individual dioceses inevitably operate in a similar manner; their manner of operation is not identical and all have discretion in relation to the way in which attend to (for example) the welfare of retired priests. Of course, all dioceses are subject to canon law, but canon law is not prescriptive about the way in which arrangements such a8 the provision of maintenance and residence are devised and implemented We this is satisfactory and explains why this response is provided by the Diocese of Northampton and not Cardinal Nichols. Cardinal Nichols is interested and concerned about these matters, and our response to you will be shared with him. We will also endeavour to share the concerns that have arisen from this case, and our response to them;, across the other dioceses in England and Wales. By doing this, we that all necessary lessons may be learned by those to whom are applicable As regards the circumstances of this sad case: As you know Canon Brian Frost was ordained in 1950, served at St Joseph's Bedford the Cathedral, Leighton Buzzard, St Joseph's Luton for 14 years; Rushden for 11 years, then Kettering for three years before a brief spell at St Patricks Corby, where he retired in 1995. Asa retired clergyman he was provided with a grace and favour property at As you will appreciate, members of the are not employees and therefore the Diocese did not owe a under section 2(1) of the Health and at Work etc Act 1974 'HSWA 1974'). Even if any such duty is considered to have been owed, it is highly unlikely that it would have extended to his personal residence, where no work activities took place_ Of course , the Diocese accepts that it also has wider duties under (principally) section 3(1) HSWA 1974, which is the to ensure that non-employees are not exposed to risks to their health and safety from the conduct of an undertaking: The Diocese takes the view that the nature of its undertaking in connection with Canon Frost was limited indeed, there is strong argument for saying it was exercising no legal undertaking in relation to Canon Frost; Notwithstanding this, we will approach the matter on the basis that it was operating limited undertaking, which we suggest was no more than that of private landlord Or de facto landiord We say de facto landlord because no formal tenancy or licence was entered into as the property was provided on a grace and favour basis, but the Diocese accepts it was required to discharge the basic statutory functions of a private landlord These were principally the safe installation and maintenance of gas and electrical equipment; it did this: Northampton Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust Registered Charity Number 234091 Clergy they hope Having said this; hope they from clergy duty Safety duty arising The
Consistent with canon law and convention, the Diocese provided Canon Frost with a grace and favour residence for his natural life: It was not acting O purporting to act as & Care Retirement Home Or other supported provider. This was not its undertaking or function, nor did it have an obligation under canon law or other provision to exercise this undertaking or function_ As a landlord (OT de facto landlord) it had few other legal obligations, whether through the English law of real property or canon law in relation to the interior condition 0f the property. In particular; the Diocese does not accept it was in breach of any repairing obligations it may have had, certainly in the absence of specific indication that there was & problem with the floor tiles any It also had no other legal obligations in Ielation to the welfare of Canon Frost merely because he was retired priest of the Diocese; While it did ensure that & yearly pastoral visit was made to it was not thereby assuming 3 day to day responsibility to safeguard his welfare while resident at As you know certain other financial provision was made but this did not with it an obligation to ensure, for example; that nothing about the internal fabric of the house presented & to day risk Its duties towards securing the welfare of Canon Frost were in fact no more extensive and probably less extensive than those of the social services We are aware that you have included the Local Authority in your Rule 28 report: As was noted at the inquest; the Local Authority was fully aware of Canon Frost' $ health following his admission into the James Paget Hospital for the cataract operation and undertook a home assessmeng he was not in need of carers_ We are conscious of the fact that in asserting what the Diocese says were its legal obligations, it may appear harsh or in some way lacking in compassion. This is not the case: the Diocese always seeks to act with care and compassion to all acting Or retired and has regard for their pastoral care_ In essessing whether the Diocese did all it ought reasonably to have done in relation to Frost' s welfare; the Coroner is aware that the property at was Canon Frost's sister' $ and he was known to have strong family support in the area Wrignally accepted that Canon Frost was becoming frailer and less capable of for himself; the Diocese was entitled to think that any issues affecting the safety of his accommodation Would have been raised by Canon Frost'$ family, ifnot by Canon Frost himself If issues about his accommodation had been raised, there is no doubt the Diocese would have addressed them_ This would have been done by the Property and Finance Department or Northampton Priest's fund, which is separate fund. No such was ever raised, either by Canon Frost or by his family. The only request received from Canon Frost was in relation to payment for & cataract operation Which Was paid for from the Priest*s fund, said all of this, the Diocese acknowledges that @ state of affairs arose in connection with the property at that was unsatisfactory, and it will take all practicable steps to ensure that lessons are learned, and similar events do not occur in the future. The Diocese already taken steps to ensure that these events do not reoccur; as follows: The Diocese has reviewed its procedures for supporting retired Priests living in Diocesan accommodation; All Priests will continue to receive at least annual visits from the Diocesan Welfare Officer; but the Welfare Officer will bejoined on those visits by one of Diocesan Surveyors; The Northampton Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust Registered Charity Number 234091 Home; living him, bring day issues finding = yet clergy Canon house caring issue Having has Clergy the
The Surveyor will carry out a full external and internal assessment of property' s fabric and condition; together with a Health and Assessment informed by the advice of the Welfare Officer about the health and mobility of Priest; At the end of the survey the Surveyor , the Welfare Officer and the Priest will discuss the of the survey . repair works noted as needed Or recommended from a property or health and safety perspective will be agreed with the Priest and organised by the Surveyor; who wili agree with the Priest suitable times for access and will manage and approve the works The costs will be borne by the Diocese; Should the survey identify works that might assist a Priest in his occupation of the property (handrails, grab rails etc) the Surveyor and Welfare Officer will strongly recommend to the Priest that these are carried out and, if he agrees, the Surveyor will organise these as detailed above; IE the Priest does not agree to the recommended works then the Welfare Officer will escalate the issue to the Vicar General or Bishop to agree the next steps; and At the end of visit the Priest will be left cards showing office hours and out of office hours for both tle Welfare Officer and Surveyor in the event that property repairs become nceded We that all of this is satisfactory and addresses the concerns that prompted you to issue a Rule 28 Report;
Action Should Be Taken
priest being opinion
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you or your organisation have the power to take such action:
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you or your organisation have the power to take such action:
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On Ist August 2016 commenced an investigation into the death of Brian Alban Frost The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 10h Sept 2018. The conclusion of the inquest was that the death was an accident The medical cause of death was confirmed as: 1(a) Head and neck injuries following a fall Marginal zone Iymphoma and ischaemic heart disease.
Circumstances of the Death
On the 30th June 2018 Canon Frost had an unwitnessed fall in his home at during which he sustained severe head injuries. He was found by his next-door neighbours who called the emergency services. Canon Frost was pronounced dead at the scene at 19.52 hours by a member of the East of England Ambulance Service. The Suffolk Constabulary conducted enquiries and concluded there was no third-party involvement in Canon Frost's death: Canon Frost was taken to the James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, Norfolk wherel conducted a post-mortem examination on the 4th July 2018 providing the cause of death as; 1(a) Head and neck injuries following a fall and 2, marginal zone lymphoma and ischaemic heart disease
Canon Frost was a 92yr old retired Roman Catholic priest who lived alone but had a good relationship with his neighbours Canon Frost's neighbours attended at approximately 110Ohrs the morning of June 2018 and found Canon Frost in the rear 'garden: They went round as they heard strange noises coming from his garden and they shouted to ask if he was ok' Canon Frost replied that he wasn't, therefore went to help him: He was found on top of a planter and couldn't get himself up. They stayed with him for approximately 3Omins: Canon Frost stated he had a fall and said he had a nose bleed. He also had what is described a8 a graze on the top of his head and a small cut to his arm: He refused ambulance or medical assistance but was assisted by his neighbours. The neighbours left Canon Frosts address and returned in the evening; Canon Frost's front door was unlocked as he tended to leave it during the (normally only locking it in the evening): The neighbour entered the property as she had some fresh vegetables to give him and found him in the kitchen on his front; unresponsive with a large of blood underneath him The rear door of the property was open but there is no disturbance seen in the property, with money stiil remaining on his room table: The hob of his oven was switched on and Canon Frost was found with a slice of bread by his left-hand side Canon Frost was found with a large laceration to his forehead, graze to his right knee and various bruising to different parts of both arms_ Canon Frost is described by his neighbours as regularly having falls and unsteady on his feet Canon Frost had a bad fall in summer of 2017 and was admitted to James Paget Hospital after fracturing his hip and had had a number of subsequent falls since Canon frost's home was not his own but is owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Northampton
Canon Frost was a 92yr old retired Roman Catholic priest who lived alone but had a good relationship with his neighbours Canon Frost's neighbours attended at approximately 110Ohrs the morning of June 2018 and found Canon Frost in the rear 'garden: They went round as they heard strange noises coming from his garden and they shouted to ask if he was ok' Canon Frost replied that he wasn't, therefore went to help him: He was found on top of a planter and couldn't get himself up. They stayed with him for approximately 3Omins: Canon Frost stated he had a fall and said he had a nose bleed. He also had what is described a8 a graze on the top of his head and a small cut to his arm: He refused ambulance or medical assistance but was assisted by his neighbours. The neighbours left Canon Frosts address and returned in the evening; Canon Frost's front door was unlocked as he tended to leave it during the (normally only locking it in the evening): The neighbour entered the property as she had some fresh vegetables to give him and found him in the kitchen on his front; unresponsive with a large of blood underneath him The rear door of the property was open but there is no disturbance seen in the property, with money stiil remaining on his room table: The hob of his oven was switched on and Canon Frost was found with a slice of bread by his left-hand side Canon Frost was found with a large laceration to his forehead, graze to his right knee and various bruising to different parts of both arms_ Canon Frost is described by his neighbours as regularly having falls and unsteady on his feet Canon Frost had a bad fall in summer of 2017 and was admitted to James Paget Hospital after fracturing his hip and had had a number of subsequent falls since Canon frost's home was not his own but is owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Northampton
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Amend GLOS to allow claimants oral submissions at panel hearings
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Care risk assessment failures
Post Office to engage in negotiations during HSSA appeal period
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Care risk assessment failures
Require external wall information for fire services
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Fire risk assessment failures
Train fire personnel on external wall fire risks
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Fire risk assessment failures
Require evacuation plans for high-rise buildings
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Fire risk assessment failures
Require compliant flat entrance doors where unsafe cladding exists
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Fire risk assessment failures
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.