Thomas Crabbe

Date of report: 26/08/2026 Ref: 2026-0428 Deceased name: Thomas Crabbe Coroner name: Alison Mutch Coroner Area: Manchester South This report is being sent to: Home Office | College of Policing REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

I am Alison Mutch, Senior Coroner, for the coroner area of Greater Manchester South.

26 August 2026

1. Home Secretary
2. College of Policing

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 21 October 2026 . I, the coroner, may extend the period if an appropriate application is made.

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action. Otherwise, you must explain why no action is  proposed. I have a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner. In accordance with the Chief Coroner’s Publication Policy, you should send me any representations regarding publication of your response. These representations  should be made at the same time as the response is provided. I will pass any  representations received to the Chief Coroner for a decision. Please note any links to webpages included in the response will not be checked for sensitive information prior to publication, as the information is already online . The names of those who do not respond to PFD reports are regularly published on the Chief Coroner’s webpages Non-responses to Prevention of Future Death (PFD) reports – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.

See below

In my opinion unless action is taken to address the above concerns then there is a significant risk of future deaths and I believe each of you have the power to take  such action.

On 5 th January 2026, I commenced an investigation into the death of Thomas Crabbe date of birth 8 th October 1947. The medical cause of death was: 1a) Hypothermia; and II) Ischaemic heart disease and bronchopneumonia Conclusion- Narrative: Died from hypothermia having fallen to the floor in his flat which was not warm and when he was not able to call for assistance.

Thomas Crabbe was a 78-year-old man with limited mobility living alone in a social housing flat designated for the over 60s. A family friend became concerned when  she was unable to contact him after 27th December 2025. She did not have a key  but made several visits to try to contact him. Her concern increasing, she contacted Greater Manchester Police on 1st January to ask for help. She was told that as she could not see him within the flat that it was not a police matter. The advice was to  call Stockport Homes when they reopened the next day, or it might be worth trying  the ambulance service. The following day Stockport Homes were contacted as  soon as they reopened. They went to the property and forced entry due to their  significant concerns for his welfare following the information given. Thomas Crabbe was found deceased on the floor of the living room of the flat. He had probably  been dead for several days. A post-mortem confirmed he had died of hypothermia.

During the course of the inquest I heard evidence giving rise to concern. In my  opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows: Greater Manchester Police dealt with the concerns raised in relation to Mr Crabbe under Right Care Right Person which has been adopted by Police Forces  nationally to reduce the number of incidents that police officers attend. The particular concerns that arose in relation to Right Care Right Person and how it is used/interpreted by Forces and the risk of future deaths arose in relation to  several issues:

1. In this situation the Court was told that Police would have attended had the friend been able to see he was in the flat. However, Mr Crabbe could not in  reality have been anywhere else given what was known about him and the  information shared.
2. It was accepted in evidence that if GMP are not attending then effective  signposting is essential. In this situation the Police were saying it was a health matter rather than a police matter and that NWAS were the correct  organisation. This was not made clear by the call handler. The police on their  review did not identify the quality issue relating to signposting.
3. The internal Police review identified that the friend should have been told to call hospitals etc. However, it was accepted in evidence that such advice  would in reality have not helped as a hospital is bound by GDPR and it was  unlikely that such information would have been given out. It was unclear why such advice was seen as appropriate when a concern for welfare was being  raised and if it should be given by Police Forces.

11 COPIES AND PUBLICATION OF THIS REPORT I have a duty to send a copy of my report to every Interested Person who in my opinion should receive it. I also may send a copy of the report to any other person who I believe may find it useful or of interest. I can confirm I have sent the report to: 1: The Executor I also have a duty to send a copy of the report to the Chief Coroner. You may make representations to me, the coroner, about the publication of the contents of this report in line with Chief Coroner’s PFD Publication Policy (2026).  Any representations will be sent to the Chief Coroner alongside the report. Please refer to box 4 above for additional information relating to the publication of reports and responses. 12 [REDACTED]