“Between the time of the impact and him being incapable of further speech the driver had a…”

The coroner’s concerns

– Between the time of the impact and him being incapable of further speech the driver had a conversation with an Ambulance Control call handler with a view to securing the attendance of the Emergency Services. This call lasted for several minutes and it is clear from listening to the recording how frantic the driver became as the fire began and took hold. The driver gave quite an accurate description of his approximate location to the call handler but the call handler was unable at any time during the call to accurately locate the whereabouts of the incident. Technological information given by GPS gave an inaccurate location for the incident. The emergency call was routed to Yorkshire Ambulance Service rather than to North East Ambulance Service which would have been based in Newcastle Upon Tyne. The call handler with Yorkshire ambulance Service was based in Wakefield. She had no personal knowledge of the area. Despite having a map in front of her and the assistance of two other members of staff looking over her shoulder and trying to assist it was not possible for an ambulance to be dispatched. The call handler in evidence said that she repeated certain key information to the caller but that is not recorded. She gave evidence that she would have covered the microphone to speak to colleagues in trying to locate the incident. Her evidence was inconsistent. It is accepted in evidence that an option might have been to have sought further and urgent advice from a more local agency, the North East Ambulance Trust or possibly Durham Police or Durham and Darlington Fire Rescue Service. Evidence was given that it is not possible to transfer responsibility for calls from one emergency service to another and the only means of further communication would be by telephone. The 6 evidence was clear that in cross boundary area situations there are inadequate systems in place to secure the best possible response to an incident. It is not possible for one ambulance service to dispatch an ambulance from another ambulance service. Evidence was given that a suitable ambulance had been identified to be sent to this incident based at Richmond North Yorkshire with an estimated journey time of 28 minutes. There was an ambulance station situated in Barnard Castle (and incidentally a Police Station and Fire Station) which is only some 5 minutes or so travelling time away from the incident location. Because of the difficulties in establishing an exact location, at no time did Yorkshire Ambulance have sufficient information to despatch an ambulance. Emergency services only attended the scene of the incident once a further call had been made to the Emergency Services by a member of the public. The evidence in this case was that even if the local Fire Brigade had been promptly summond, an appropriate appliance would not have reached the incident scene sufficiently quickly to have changed the outcome i.e. the death of the driver. The evidence however, reveals system shortcomings which may in other circumstances lead to avoidable deaths taking place and therefore a review by the Emergency Services of a joined up approach could be particularly useful, in addition to a comprehensive review of call handling procedures in difficult circumstances such as these.

An extract. Read the full report, including the circumstances of the death, on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.

Source

judiciary.uk, Prevention of Future Deaths reports, 2015-0102

Added to Minute Book

8 Oct 2026

Reuse

We show short extracts and link to the original. We don’t host the full report.

Something wrong, such as a date or who it was sent to? Report a mistake

Is this report about someone close to you? You can ask us to remove names from our pages.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, judiciary.uk. Open Government Licence v3.0