Fire Chief’s CV Discrepancy — and Councillors’ Silence
Chief Fire Officer Simon Tuhill is under pressure to explain conflicting career records, while Fire Authority councillors face mounting criticism for refusing to answer questions.
When someone takes one of Britain’s most senior fire service leadership posts, the credibility of their career record matters. For Simon Tuhill, Chief Fire Officer of West Midlands Fire Service (WMFS), questions have been raised about aspects of his stated career path, a past tribunal finding, and the transparency of the recruitment process.
WMFS insists that due checks were made before his appointment. Yet in the aftermath of his predecessor’s tragic death, and with Fire Authority members silent so far, public confidence may be at risk unless clearer answers are provided.
LinkedIn vs. the Paper Trail: The 7/7 Discrepancy
On his LinkedIn profile, captured on 9 September 2025, Mr Tuhill lists himself as Crew Commander (Feb 1998–Oct 2007).
An official London Fire Brigade awards booklet recognising the response to the 7 July 2005 London bombings, however, lists “Firefighter Simon Tuhill, Soho Fire Station.”
In service terms, “Firefighter” is a frontline role while “Crew Commander” is supervisory. The two records differ in terminology and timing. This may reflect a routine reporting variation, but the difference invites clarification.
WMFS responded with a general statement that due checks had been completed prior to his appointment but provided no further particulars. Mr Tuhill did not respond personally by press time.
The Wayne Brown Tragedy: Lessons Unlearned?
Mr Tuhill’s appointment came in the aftermath of the deeply troubling tenure of Wayne Brown, who died by suicide in January 2024 amid scrutiny of CV claims.
Brown had presented himself as holding an MBA and a professional football career, both of which were later disputed. An inquest heard he had started but not completed an MBA, and that his footballing experience was limited to youth training schemes rather than competitive play.
The inquest further highlighted the role of media pressure and the lack of adequate welfare support from WMFS. A Prevention of Future Deaths report criticised the organisation for failing to investigate Brown’s death or strengthen welfare provision for senior staff.
This history does not suggest Mr Tuhill misrepresented his own record. But it does highlight why clarity about his career details is especially important if the service is to demonstrate that lessons have been learned.
The Flanagan Tribunal Finding
In June 2022, an Employment Tribunal upheld firefighter Ben Flanagan’s complaint of trade union detriment under s.146 TULRCA, awarding him £7,252. The tribunal recorded that Borough Commander Simon Tuhill told Mr Flanagan on 23 August 2019 that he would be compulsorily transferred from West Hampstead to Stanmore, and that DAC Andy Hearn maintained that decision on 30 October 2019.
The tribunal found that the Transfer Policy “was not adhered to”, that the move “amounted to a detriment”, and that “a principal reason for the transfer was the trade union activity of the claimant.” It criticised aspects of the decision-making—stating that “Mr Tuhill’s actions were not reasonable” and that Mr Hearn should have recused himself—while also noting that Mr Tuhill was not aware of the claimant’s involvement in some specific union cases.
The whistleblowing claim under s.47B ERA was dismissed.
(Watford ET, 28–31 March 2022; reserved 10 June 2022; Case No. 3300212/2020).
Asked about the implications of this finding, Fire Brigades Union assistant general secretary Ben Selby told midlandsGRIT:
“Chief fire officers must be accountable to the public and the workforce of the fire and rescue services they lead. The FBU is aware that a tribunal concluded that a union rep had been unfairly treated by Simon Tuhill in London in the past. Any thorough recruitment process should have been made aware of and considered this history. Union-bashing tactics are damaging to our sector’s culture and must be left in the past. Chief fire officers can make improvements to the service by engaging constructively with FBU reps, who are the voices of the frontline. We certainly won’t allow behaviours like those reported in the tribunal to ever go unchallenged.”
WMFS, asked to respond to both the tribunal finding and the FBU’s concerns, said only that due checks had been completed before Mr Tuhill’s appointment. Mr Tuhill himself did not reply personally by press time.
Nolan Principles in Practice
Comment: The Nolan Principles—honesty, integrity, openness, accountability and leadership—are the standard for public office. An unresolved difference between published records, coupled with unanswered questions about past findings, sits uneasily with those principles. In our view, a clear explanation would help restore confidence.
The Role of the Fire Authority
Because ultimate accountability for the appointment rests with the Fire Authority, questions were addressed directly to all of its members, not only the Chair. Councillors collectively confirmed the appointment, and governance responsibility sits with them.
In a letter to the Authority, midlandsGRIT asked:
Did the Fire Authority consider the Flanagan tribunal findings before confirming Mr Tuhill’s appointment?
What checks were undertaken into his career record and qualifications prior to his appointment?
In light of the Wayne Brown case, what was done differently to ensure proper scrutiny and welfare safeguards?
No councillor replied by the deadline of 13 September 2025. At present, all questions have been redirected through the Fire Service press office.
Conclusion: Trust Built on Clarity
This is not about catching a leader in a minor slip. It is about whether the organisation charged with safeguarding millions of people appoints its most senior officer with proper transparency and accountability.
Firefighters—and the communities they serve—deserve leaders whose records withstand scrutiny, whose welfare is safeguarded, and whose dealings with staff and unions are fair. Until the Fire Authority addresses these questions directly, doubts about the credibility of the process are likely to remain.
Editor’s note
On 9 September 2025 we asked WMFS and Chief Fire Officer Simon Tuhill to respond to specific questions on his career record, the Flanagan tribunal, and the recruitment process. WMFS replied with a general statement that due checks had been completed; Mr Tuhill did not respond personally by press time. We remain open to publishing any further response in full. Should councillors wish to reconsider, we extend the response deadline to 20 September 2025. If no information is forthcoming, we will consider referring the matter through appropriate governance channels, including each councillor’s political group whip and the Fire Authority’s monitoring officer.
Disclaimer:
This report relies on public documents and requests for comment. All parties were offered a right of reply, and further responses will be published in full.