Recurring concern

Uncontrolled structural-collapse risks in properties

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 17 Jan 2020•Latest report 5 Aug 2024

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes continuing hazards or control failures involving structural elements of properties, including walls, floors and comparable building components, where collapse could cause death or serious injury; include the anchor's unsafe wall dimensions and the separate report's at-risk property floors.

Not included

Excludes isolated structural damage or a single collapse where no continuing or comparable risk to other properties is identified.
Excludes general building maintenance, electrical, damp, fire, access or environmental hazards unless structural collapse is the material unsafe condition.
Excludes road, bridge, retaining-wall and other infrastructure-collapse concerns unless the assertion concerns structural elements of occupied or adjoining properties.
Excludes construction-process, inspection or accountability deficiencies when no material structural-collapse risk is asserted.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 2
Date range: 2020–2024
Stated actions: 5

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.

Cadent Gas Limited1

Eastleigh Borough Council1

Safe Gas Network Ltd1

Scotland Gas Networks plc1

Southampton City Council1

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.

5 Aug2024
Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth
Concerns raised1
1. Unsafe dimensions of walls in adjoining properties creating a collapse risk during severe storms
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
  Survey surrounding garden walls to identify properties with similar potentially unstable designs.
  Stated by Eastleigh Borough CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Send residents letters explaining the collapse, potential stability issues and advice to seek experienced builder or engineer guidance.
  Stated by Eastleigh Borough CouncilStated planned
3. Action
  Revisit the site after six months to reassess whether any garden walls present immediate risk or require remedial action.
  Stated by Eastleigh Borough CouncilStated planned
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Responsibility for garden-wall stability rests with the initial contractor and subsequent property owners, rather than the local authority.
  Stated by Eastleigh Borough CouncilRedirects responsibility
1. Position
  No walls currently show immediate risk, so immediate remedial action is not considered necessary, subject to a six-month review.
  Stated by Eastleigh Borough CouncilDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Janet Karen HARRISON · 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 Karen HARRISON was found beneath her neighbour’s collapsed wall during Storm Eunice on 18 February 2022 and suffered catastrophic injuries. After hospital admissions and treatment for multiple complications, she died in hospital on 31 August 2022 from hospital-acquired pneumonia. The concern was that other nearby walls had similarly unsafe dimensions and could collapse in future storms of similar force, placing others at risk of death.

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
Unsafe dimensions of walls in adjoining properties creating a collapse risk during severe storms
Wider context from the report
“I heard evidence from ████████ the owner of the property adjoining that of Janet Karen HARRISON whose wall collapsed on 18 February 2022, ████████ the occupier and neighbour of Janet Karen HARRISON and the family of Janet Karen HARRISON who were all confirmed to me in evidence that there are a number of adjoining properties in the area which have walls built with the same unsafe dimensions as the one that collapsed on to Janet Karen HARRISON during Storm Eunice. I am therefore concerned that if there were other storms in the UK of similar force to that of Storm Eunice then there is a risk of further walls in the local area collapsing thereby placing others at risk of future deaths. ”
Source location
Janet Karen HARRISON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · 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
Survey surrounding garden walls to identify properties with similar potentially unstable designs.

Verbatim wording from the response
“5. In response to this death, ████████, the Principal Building Control Surveyor, conducted a survey of the surrounding garden wall types along Kings Copse Road, using the Land Registry extracts provided to Building Control. The”

Source location
Response from Eastleigh Borough Council
Page 1 · response
Published 21 October 2024
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
Send residents letters explaining the collapse, potential stability issues and advice to seek experienced builder or engineer guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“9. ████████ will be undertaking a letter drop to those houses on the estate which have significant length walls of this design, making them aware of the tragic event, outlining the potential stability issues with this type of wall and advising them to seek advice from an experienced builder or engineer to increase the stability of their wall. The letters will be sent within 21 days of today.”

Source location
Response from Eastleigh Borough Council
Page 2 · response
Published 21 October 2024
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
Revisit the site after six months to reassess whether any garden walls present immediate risk or require remedial action.

Verbatim wording from the response
“10. As no walls currently show immediate risk and therefore do not require immediate remedial action, EBC proposes to revisit the site in 6 months to determine if that remains the case. Should any wall at that point demonstrate potential instability EBC will follow their usual process set out in paragraph 4 of informal engagement with the property owner, and legal action if that does not result in remedial action.”

Source location
Response from Eastleigh Borough Council
Page 2 · response
Published 21 October 2024
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
Responsibility for garden-wall stability rests with the initial contractor and subsequent property owners, rather than the local authority.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3. This matter relates to a garden wall to a residential property. Building regulations do not apply to the construction of garden walls, therefore it is not uncommon for a variety of wall types to be constructed by developers when building properties. The legal responsibility for the stability of garden walls rests with the initial contractor when building the property, and then the subsequent property owners.”

Source location
Response from Eastleigh Borough Council
Page 1 · response
Published 21 October 2024
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
No walls currently show immediate risk, so immediate remedial action is not considered necessary, subject to a six-month review.

Verbatim wording from the response
“10. As no walls currently show immediate risk and therefore do not require immediate remedial action, EBC proposes to revisit the site in 6 months to determine if that remains the case. Should any wall at that point demonstrate potential instability EBC will follow their usual process set out in paragraph 4 of informal engagement with the property owner, and legal action if that does not result in remedial action.”

Source location
Response from Eastleigh Borough Council
Page 2 · response
Published 21 October 2024
Open published response
17 Jan2020
Rutland and North Leicestershire
Concerns raised1
1. Risk of floors failing in properties within the immediate area
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 2
1. Action
  Engage affected residents through a local meeting and distributed leaflets explaining the property risk and mitigating actions.
  Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveStated completed
2. Action
  Provide local gas engineers with guidance on responding when attending affected properties.
  Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveStated completed
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  The GDNs had no power to take action concerning the 254 properties at risk of floor failure.
  Stated by Cadent Gas Limited and Northern Gas Networks Limited and Scotland Gas Networks plc and Southern Gas Networks PLC and Wales & West Utilities LimitedOutside remit
1. Position
  The HSE would separately consider action concerning the 254 properties at risk of floor failure.
  Stated by Cadent Gas Limited and Northern Gas Networks Limited and Scotland Gas Networks plc and Southern Gas Networks PLC and Wales & West Utilities LimitedRedirects responsibility
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
Risk of floors failing in properties within the immediate area
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
Engage affected residents through a local meeting and distributed leaflets explaining the property risk and mitigating actions.

Verbatim wording from the response
“2. Other properties in the immediate area at risk HSE, along with the Gas Safe Register, undertook extensive communication activity with both residents and gas engineers in the local area to advise them of the cause of the incident, the risk to their own properties and the action they could take to mitigate this. This included:”

Source location
Response from Health and Safety Executives
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
Provide local gas engineers with guidance on responding when attending affected properties.

Verbatim wording from the response
“2. Other properties in the immediate area at risk HSE, along with the Gas Safe Register, undertook extensive communication activity with both residents and gas engineers in the local area to advise them of the cause of the incident, the risk to their own properties and the action they could take to mitigate this. This included:”

Source location
Response from Health and Safety Executives
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
The GDNs had no power to take action concerning the 254 properties at risk of floor failure.

Verbatim wording from the response
“This meeting was attended by the engineering policy leads for each of the GDNs, together with Steve Critchlow and Caroline Lane of the HSE. At this meeting, it was agreed that the GDNs did not have any power to take action in relation to the two hundred and fifty-four properties which were at risk of floors failing and the HSE would consider this point separately.”

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 position was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
The HSE would separately consider action concerning the 254 properties at risk of floor failure.

Verbatim wording from the response
“This meeting was attended by the engineering policy leads for each of the GDNs, together with Steve Critchlow and Caroline Lane of the HSE. At this meeting, it was agreed that the GDNs did not have any power to take action in relation to the two hundred and fifty-four properties which were at risk of floors failing and the HSE would consider this point separately.”

Source location
Response from Cadent Gas, Northern Gas, Scotland Gas Wales and West Utilities
Page 1 · response
Published 8 February 2020
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Unsafe dimensions of walls in adjoining properties creating a collapse risk during severe storms

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.2

Concerns raised1

Risk of floors failing in properties within the immediate area

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.2

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 2

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 2