Recurring concern

Unreliable gas safety inspection arrangements

First to latest report 18 Oct 2013 — 17 Jan 2020

Reports that mention this concern
2
Times this concern has been raised
3
Stated actions linked to this concern
3

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.

What is 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 and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. Rutland and North Leicestershire

    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

  2. Manchester City

    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

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026