Recurring concern

Unreliable gas safety inspection arrangements

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 18 Oct 2013•Latest report 17 Jan 2020

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of gas safety inspection arrangements, including inconsistent requirements for post-incident inspection of adjoining properties and inadequate monitoring of gas suppliers' safety-check offers and uptake, where the deficiency directly affects identification or control of gas-related risks.

Not included

Excludes generic gas-supplier communication, awareness or regulatory deficiencies unless they directly concern a gas safety inspection arrangement.
Excludes pressure testing, gas-cylinder identification, purchase controls and other gas-related hazards or controls that are not part of gas safety inspection arrangements.
Excludes the underlying presence of a gas hazard when no inspection, inspection requirement or monitoring deficiency is identified.
Excludes routine property maintenance or housing inspections unrelated to gas safety.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 3
Date range: 2013–2020
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.

All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group1

Cadent Gas Limited1

Department of Energy & Climate Change1

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service1

GS Halls Limited1

Health and Safety Executive1

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government1

National Fire Chiefs Council1

National Gas Transmission plc1

Ofgem1

Safe Gas Network Ltd1

Scotland Gas Networks plc1

The Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers1

Wales & West Utilities Limited1

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.

17 Jan2020
Rutland and North Leicestershire
Concerns raised1
1. Inconsistent inspection of adjoining properties for gas
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Agree aligned wording clarifying requirements for investigating internal gas escapes and checking possible external sources.
  Stated by Cadent Gas Limited and Northern Gas Networks Limited and Scotland Gas Networks plc and Southern Gas Networks PLC and Wales & West Utilities LimitedStated completed
2. Action
  Brief operational teams on the revised internal-gas-escape investigation requirements.
  Stated by Cadent Gas Limited and Northern Gas Networks Limited and Scotland Gas Networks plc and Southern Gas Networks PLC and Wales & West Utilities LimitedStated planned
3. Action
  Put the revised investigation requirements in place across all gas distribution networks.
  Stated by Cadent Gas Limited and Northern Gas Networks Limited and Scotland Gas Networks plc and Southern Gas Networks PLC and Wales & West Utilities LimitedStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Existing GDN procedures already provided a consistent approach to checking adjoining and adjacent properties during internal gas-escape investigations.
  Stated by Cadent Gas Limited and Northern Gas Networks Limited and Scotland Gas Networks plc and Southern Gas Networks PLC and Wales & West Utilities LimitedExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Janet Shirley Jasper · 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

Janet Shirley Jasper died in hospital on 12 December 2017 after a gas explosion at a neighbouring property caused an enormous flash and bang, resulting in thoracic trauma and multi-organ failure. The principal concerns were that 254 nearby properties were at risk of similar floor failures and that gas distribution networks had inconsistent policies on inspecting adjoining properties after reports of gas smells.

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
Inconsistent inspection of adjoining properties for gas
Wider context from the report
“The Court heard that there are two hundred and fifty four properties within the immediate area of the incident which are at risk of floors failing in a similar manner The Court also heard there is inconsistency in the policies of the four gas distribution networks with some requiring first call operatives to inspect adjoining properties for gas and some permitting the operative to make that decision based upon the circumstance and findings on scene In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths may occur unless the risk to the other properties within the immediate area of the incident is properly and quickly addressed, and a consistent approach to inspecting adjoining properties is developed ”
Source location
Janet Shirley Jasper · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · 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
Agree aligned wording clarifying requirements for investigating internal gas escapes and checking possible external sources.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In relation to the GDN procedures, when the documents were reviewed as a whole and side by side, it was agreed that there was already a consistent approach to checking adjoining and adjacent properties when investigating an internal escape. However, detailed discussions continued in relation to whether the industry could clarify its existing procedures in this regard.”

Source location
Response from Cadent Gas, Northern Gas, Scotland Gas Wales and West Utilities
Page 1 · response
Published 8 February 2020
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
Brief operational teams on the revised internal-gas-escape investigation requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response
“investigate the possibility of gas leaking from external sources before confirming a “no trace” result. As part of this investigation, operatives must check immediately adjoining and adjacent properties where it could be reasonably assumed, based on site conditions, that they are a possible cause of the reported smell of gas.”

Source location
Response from Cadent Gas, Northern Gas, Scotland Gas Wales and West Utilities
Page 2 · response
Published 8 February 2020
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
Put the revised investigation requirements in place across all gas distribution networks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“investigate the possibility of gas leaking from external sources before confirming a “no trace” result. As part of this investigation, operatives must check immediately adjoining and adjacent properties where it could be reasonably assumed, based on site conditions, that they are a possible cause of the reported smell of gas.”

Source location
Response from Cadent Gas, Northern Gas, Scotland Gas Wales and West Utilities
Page 2 · response
Published 8 February 2020
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 GDN procedures already provided a consistent approach to checking adjoining and adjacent properties during internal gas-escape investigations.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In relation to the GDN procedures, when the documents were reviewed as a whole and side by side, it was agreed that there was already a consistent approach to checking adjoining and adjacent properties when investigating an internal escape. However, detailed discussions continued in relation to whether the industry could clarify its existing procedures in this regard.”

Source location
Response from Cadent Gas, Northern Gas, Scotland Gas Wales and West Utilities
Page 1 · response
Published 8 February 2020
Open published response
18 Oct2013
Manchester City
Concerns raised2
1. Lack of established monitoring of offers and uptake of free annual gas safety checks
2. Lack of a duty to allow recognised engineers to inspect boilers in multi-occupancy buildings
This report raised 12 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

ELIZABETH AURORA KERR · 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

Elizabeth Aurora Kerr died after carbon monoxide from a malfunctioning basement boiler entered the residential flat where she lived, and she was found unconscious several hours after the Fire Service had attended the building. The report identified concerns about the movement and detection of carbon monoxide in buildings, the absence and use of carbon monoxide alarms and gas safety controls, and Fire and Rescue Service equipment, guidance and responses.

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
Lack of established monitoring of offers and uptake of free annual gas safety checks
Wider context from the report
“4. Piped Gas Suppliers: It is understood that there are specific conditions of a licence to supply gas as summarised below. It is not clear how gas suppliers define and determine who is a ”vulnerable and priority” customer and how it is established that they have been offered a free annual gas safety check, and have taken advantage (or not) of such an offer ? Nor who actually checks what steps a gas supplier takes in practice to raise the awareness of danger and who judges the reasonability of the steps? ”
Source location
ELIZABETH AURORA KERR · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 6 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a duty to allow recognised engineers to inspect boilers in multi-occupancy buildings
Wider context from the report
“8. The Chief Fire Officers Association “Blue Watch Initiative” This is a voluntary initiative to be encouraged and supported. It offers an independent safety validation service for landlords and letting agents. http://www.bluewatch.co.uk/. The investigation established that incomplete flue piping had not been identified on routine inspection visits despite the regulatory regime created by The Gas Safety (Installation and Use ) Regulations 1988. At present there is no duty imposed on the owner of a boiler or a gas supplier ( who makes a profit from the supply ) that in the case of a multi occupancy building to allow the other occupants , through recognised engineers , to inspect the boiler and be warned to install CO alarms. ”
Source location
ELIZABETH AURORA KERR · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 6 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Inconsistent inspection of adjoining properties for gas

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.3

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

Concerns raised2

Lack of established monitoring of offers and uptake of free annual gas safety checks

Lack of a duty to allow recognised engineers to inspect boilers in multi-occupancy buildings

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 1