Recurring concern

Uncontrolled flammability risks from clothing

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 20 May 2015•Latest report 9 Dec 2016

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes clothing or garments made, imported or sold for public use where cotton, synthetic, blended or other material flammability creates a foreseeable serious fire or burn risk.

Not included

Excludes fire risks from bedding, furniture, curtains, protective equipment or other non-clothing textiles.
Excludes ordinary clothing-quality, comfort or durability concerns that do not involve material flammability or ignition risk.
Excludes fires or burn injuries where clothing flammability is not identified as the contributing safety condition.
Excludes general product warnings, labelling or recall failures unless the assertion specifically concerns the flammability hazard of clothing.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 2
Date range: 2015–2016
Stated actions: 3

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department for Business, Innovation & Skills1

Marks and Spencer plc1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

9 Dec2016
Staffordshire South
Concerns raised1
1. Highly inflammable clothing
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Test the relevant dressing gown using the rigorous bedding flammability procedure and record a pass result.
  Stated by Marks and Spencer plcStated completed
2. Action
  Test adult dressing gowns, including raised-fibre products, using flash-flame testing and refuse to sell products that fail.
  Stated by Marks and Spencer plcStated completed
Respondent positions 3
1. Position
  Testing indicated the relevant dressing gown was not highly flammable and passed the applied flammability test.
  Stated by Marks and Spencer plcDisputes the concern
1. Position
  Existing testing, customer warnings and audit procedures are considered sufficient to ensure the safety of adult dressing gowns.
  Stated by Marks and Spencer plcExisting arrangements considered sufficient
2. Position
  As a retailer, it lacks authority to undertake an industry-wide legislative review of adult dressing-gown flammability standards.
  Stated by Marks and Spencer plcOutside remit
AI-generated summary

Roy Frederick Lawton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Roy Frederick Lawton suffered serious burns after dozing off and dropping a cigar, which ignited his dressing gown and pyjamas at his home on 23 July 2016. He died in hospital on 31 August 2016; concerns were raised about the high inflammability of the dressing gown and whether clothing production, importing or retail practices could reduce the risk or warn customers.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Highly inflammable clothing
Wider context from the report
“Enquiries into this death included a fire investigation report. The Fire Investigator informed me that the dressing gown that Mr Lawton had been wearing was highly inflammable. He told me that this appears to be the case whether clothing is 100% cotton or a mixture of cotton and polyester. A short while has elapsed since the conclusion of the inquest as you have been kindly checking the production details. I now understand these are TO7/5288 manufactured by Quantium in Vietnam. I wonder if anything can be done either in the production, importing or retail of this clothing either to reduce its inflammability or to warn customers as to the danger . ”
Source location
Roy Frederick Lawton · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Test the relevant dressing gown using the rigorous bedding flammability procedure and record a pass result.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We were not provided with the remains of the Gown and accordingly provided Intertek with the Relevant Product from our store room. Intertek recommended applying the standard testing procedure used for bedding, which is amongst the most rigorous and stringent. The procedure involves placing a lit cigarette on top of, underneath and in between a fold of material. We followed the recommendation and the Relevant Product was subject to the testing procedure for bedding.”

Source location
2016-0441-Response-by-MS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 2017
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Test adult dressing gowns, including raised-fibre products, using flash-flame testing and refuse to sell products that fail.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Currently, the only requirement is to include a label on the gown stating: “Keep away from fire and flames”. M&S goes significantly beyond this legal requirement in its flammability testing of adult dressing gowns, including carrying out a ‘flash flame’ test on its dressing gowns with raised fibres (which carry the greatest risk) and refusing to sell any raised fibre fabrics which fail this test. We also have a strict audit procedure to ensure that dressing gown labels contain the correct customer warning and that raised fibre fabrics pass the ‘flash flame’ test. We are therefore satisfied that M&S goes significantly beyond what is legally required to ensure the safety of its adult dressing gowns.”

Source location
2016-0441-Response-by-MS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 2017
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Testing indicated the relevant dressing gown was not highly flammable and passed the applied flammability test.

Verbatim wording from the response
“This testing closely resembled the circumstances of the fire in Mr Lawton’s home. I attach a copy of the Flammability Test Report issued by Intertek which sets out the results of the test. The Test Report records that the cigarette burnt for between 17 and 19 minutes (depending on where it was placed on the Relevant Product) and then went out. No flame was produced and the fabric of the Relevant Product did not burn or smoulder after the cigarette had gone out. The dressing gown therefore received a ‘pass’ for flammability.”

Source location
2016-0441-Response-by-MS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 2017
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Existing testing, customer warnings and audit procedures are considered sufficient to ensure the safety of adult dressing gowns.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Currently, the only requirement is to include a label on the gown stating: “Keep away from fire and flames”. M&S goes significantly beyond this legal requirement in its flammability testing of adult dressing gowns, including carrying out a ‘flash flame’ test on its dressing gowns with raised fibres (which carry the greatest risk) and refusing to sell any raised fibre fabrics which fail this test. We also have a strict audit procedure to ensure that dressing gown labels contain the correct customer warning and that raised fibre fabrics pass the ‘flash flame’ test. We are therefore satisfied that M&S goes significantly beyond what is legally required to ensure the safety of its adult dressing gowns.”

Source location
2016-0441-Response-by-MS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 2017
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
As a retailer, it lacks authority to undertake an industry-wide legislative review of adult dressing-gown flammability standards.

Verbatim wording from the response
“M&S has a great deal of sympathy for Mr Lawton’s family who will understandably want to ensure that any lessons from Mr Lawton’s death are identified. It is, however, clear from our communications with the Fire Investigator that his concerns lie with the industry wide legal standards for the flammability of adult dressing gowns. You will appreciate that, as a retailer, we do not have the power to carry out this type of legislative review. What we can do is take every reasonable step to ensure that our own customers are safe when wearing the products we sell. For the reasons set out in this letter, M&S is fully satisfied that it does so.”

Source location
2016-0441-Response-by-MS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 2017
Open published response
20 May2015
Staffordshire South
Concerns raised1
1. Easy inflammability of clothing made from man-made fabrics
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Keep clothing flammability risks under review.
  Stated by Department for Business, Innovation & SkillsStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Insufficient evidence currently supports extending flammability requirements to other clothing types, so no further action is proposed at present.
  Stated by Department for Business, Innovation & SkillsUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Irene HAMILTON-PARKER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Irene HAMILTON-PARKER died in hospital in the early hours of 10 February 2015 after being found at home with clothing on fire while attempting to light a cigarette with an inappropriate lighter. The principal concern was the flammability of man-made clothing fabrics and whether steps could reduce the flammability of clothing manufactured or imported in the country.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Easy inflammability of clothing made from man-made fabrics
Wider context from the report
“The Fire Investigator found that Mrs Hamilton-Parker had been wearing clothes which consisted of man-made fabrics that were easily inflammable. I write to enquire if it is possible for any steps to be taken to reduce the flammability of clothing either manufactured or imported in this country. I believe that this is not an isolated case. ”
Source location
Irene HAMILTON-PARKER · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Keep clothing flammability risks under review.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Action to reduce flammability of clothing therefore needs to be based on an assessment of the various risks. Within the UK, there are specific additional flammability requirements for certain children’s nightwear and for children’s clothing which is classified as a toy, such as fancy dress costumes. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to extend these requirements to other types of clothing at present and I therefore do not propose to take further action at this time. However, I thank you for raising your concerns and my officials will keep this issue under review.”

Source location
2015-0197-Response-by-Department-for-Business-Innovation-and-Skills
Page 1 · response
Published 20 May 2015
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient evidence currently supports extending flammability requirements to other clothing types, so no further action is proposed at present.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Action to reduce flammability of clothing therefore needs to be based on an assessment of the various risks. Within the UK, there are specific additional flammability requirements for certain children’s nightwear and for children’s clothing which is classified as a toy, such as fancy dress costumes. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to extend these requirements to other types of clothing at present and I therefore do not propose to take further action at this time. However, I thank you for raising your concerns and my officials will keep this issue under review.”

Source location
2015-0197-Response-by-Department-for-Business-Innovation-and-Skills
Page 1 · response
Published 20 May 2015
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Highly inflammable clothing

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

Concerns raised1

Easy inflammability of clothing made from man-made fabrics

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 3

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 1