You're in the UK Midlands?? Interesting, so 'the authorities being formally notified' means no MOR was filed?*
Please do share more info on the incidents or the reasons that no-one involved submitted an MOR.
There may have been MORs but I don't call blindly submitting a document with brief details as 'formal notification'. I class formally notifying them as having to pick up a phone and say "we've had an incident" like you do with the AAIB. I'm talking about them being prevented from getting to the point where they end up forming part of CAA/AAIB accident statistics.
In the first case the presence of ARFF meant a problem was observed, identified, contained and dealt with as a engineering issue before it snowballed into something much much worse.
The second was a case of unexpected issue only being identified once the aircraft was on stand.
But it misses the point. My point is that you're looking at fatality stats. Though even if you looked at accident stats the figures are still skewed because they completely miss every incident where the presence of ARFF prevented the incident becoming a statistic. For example I know fire crews who responded to a galley oven fire and extinguished it before it spread beyond the oven - that wont appear on accident statistics or fatality statistics but it would have done if the ARFF weren't there to respond.
Or the Heathrow 787, though it is listed as an accident. The presence of on-site ARFF meant the aircraft wasn't a hull loss and the fire was entirely contained within the fuselage.
Or the Heathrow BA777 that crash landed on 27L undershoot back in 2008, ARFF presence prevented the situation worsening and allowed for the rescue of those injured trapped onboard.
Or the SFO 777 crash where (although they unfortunately caused one death) them being onsite meant that the fires were quickly controlled.
Or the Kegworth disaster where the ARFF being onsite meant they were pulling people out of the fuselage before it was consumed by fire.
The ARFFs really do provide a vital service that it would be folly to remove.