Recurring concern

Inadequate safety controls for hazardous glass in rented properties

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 26 Feb 2014•Latest report 9 Oct 2014

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes landlord, letting-agent and housing-provider controls specifically intended to identify and control hazardous glass in rented residential properties, including safety assessment, compliance requirements, protective film or equivalent protection, replacement, maintenance and review of internal glazed doors and other hazardous glazing.

Not included

Excludes generic rented-property hazard-management, repair or maintenance deficiencies where glass safety is not the material unsafe condition.
Excludes glass hazards in workplaces, vehicles, public infrastructure or healthcare settings unless the assertion explicitly concerns the same rented-residential glass-safety process.
Excludes failures limited to the legal, design or installation standards for a particular door-glazing component when no broader hazardous-glass control is supported.
Excludes ordinary breakage or property damage where no continuing deficiency in assessing, protecting or replacing hazardous glass is identified.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 3
Date range: 2014–2014
Stated actions: 0

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.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government1

South Kesteven District Council1

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 Oct2014
Leicester City and South Leicestershire
Concerns raised2
1. Presence of safety-noncompliant glass in older rented housing stock
2. Lack of a legal requirement for landlords or letting agents to assess glass safety
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.
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  The Government has no plans to require existing doors to meet current Building Regulations, given their non-retrospective application and major implications for existing buildings.
  Stated by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentNo action considered necessary
1. Position
  The Government has no plans to change the HHSRS because its guidance already identifies collisions with doors as a hazard.
  Stated by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Wade Dayabhai Patel · 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

Wade Dayabhai Patel was found in the hallway of his home after falling through an inner glass door, sustaining leg injuries that led to his death. The report raised concerns that the property’s original glass did not comply with current safety requirements and that there was no legal requirement for landlords or letting agents to specifically assess glass safety.

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
Presence of safety-noncompliant glass in older rented housing stock
Wider context from the report
“The glass in the door is likely to have been the original glass, the property having been built in the 1930's. For obvious reasons the glass did not comply, from a safety viewpoint, with current legislation including building regulations. Much of our housing stock will be of similar age, or older than, ████████ A significant proportion of that stock will be rented. ”
Source location
Wade Dayabhai Patel · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · 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 legal requirement for landlords or letting agents to assess glass safety
Wider context from the report
“My understanding is that there is no legal requirement for a landlord or letting agent, to look specifically at safety of glass in a property. I further understand, for example, that there is recent legislation that enhances gas safety, requiring regular checking and recording of the checks by a suitably qualified person. It therefore seems that such glass will only be replaced either in the process of a refurbishment of the property (thereby complying with current building regulations), or when the glass breaks and requires replacement. ”
Source location
Wade Dayabhai Patel · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
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 Government has no plans to require existing doors to meet current Building Regulations, given their non-retrospective application and major implications for existing buildings.

Verbatim wording from the response
“However, the Building Regulations only apply where building work takes place, typically the erection or extension of a building and the Building Act 1984 does not provide for the retrospective application of current standards to existing buildings. The Regulations therefore will not require that existing doors be made to comply with current standards unless building work subject to the Regulations is carried out to the part of the building in question. Requiring old buildings, designed and built with very different standards in mind, to meet the most modern Building Regulation requirements would have major implications for”

Source location
2014-0434-Response-by-Department-for-Communities-Local-Government
Page 1 · response
Published 9 October 2014
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 Government has no plans to change the HHSRS because its guidance already identifies collisions with doors as a hazard.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The quality of privately rented housing has improved rapidly over the past decade, and levels of satisfaction compare well to other tenures. However, a small minority of properties in the sector are in poor condition. Tenants have a right to live in safe and well maintained homes and local authorities have strong powers to tackle poor quality accommodation in their area. We expect them to use those powers if necessary. Where a serious hazard is identified, the local authority must take appropriate action. This can include formal action such as issuing an improvement notice requiring the owner to make improvements to the property, banning the use of the whole or part of a dwelling or taking emergency action to fix the hazard where there is an immediate risk to health and safety.”

Source location
2014-0434-Response-by-Department-for-Communities-Local-Government
Page 2 · response
Published 9 October 2014
Open published response
26 Feb2014
South Lincolnshire
Concerns raised1
1. Presence of non-safety glass doors in properties occupied by potentially physically unstable people
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.

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

Sidney Harvey · 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

Sidney Harvey, a 90-year-old man, sustained a severe cut when non-safety glass in a door broke, and the inquest concluded that he died from haemorrhage due to an incised wound of the left forearm. The concerns were the presence of non-safety glass doors in rented properties likely to house elderly people and children, and whether systems existed to replace or make such doors safe.

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
Presence of non-safety glass doors in properties occupied by potentially physically unstable people
Wider context from the report
“1. The presence of non-safety glass doors in properties rented where occupants are likely to include the elderly and children or other who may be unstable physically 2. Whether any system exists for replacing or making safe such glass doors. ”
Source location
Sidney Harvey · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised2

Presence of safety-noncompliant glass in older rented housing stock

Lack of a legal requirement for landlords or letting agents to assess glass safety

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

Concerns raised1

Presence of non-safety glass doors in properties occupied by potentially physically unstable people

Respondent positions 2