Recurring concern

Unreliable LOLER thorough examinations of lifting equipment

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 10 May 2016•Latest report 26 Sep 2022

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the LOLER thorough-examination process for lifting equipment, including scheduling examinations when due, carrying out sufficiently rigorous examinations, recording relevant findings or tolerance levels, making records available to subsequent examiners, and reading, acting on or escalating examination findings.

Not included

Excludes routine maintenance, servicing or operator-use failures where the LOLER thorough-examination process is not deficient.
Excludes generic equipment inspection or clinical-equipment checks that are not part of a lifting-equipment thorough-examination process.
Excludes failures involving unrelated machinery or equipment without an explicitly supported lifting-equipment examination connection.
Excludes remedial action failures unrelated to findings from a lifting-equipment thorough examination.

Reports: 3
Individual concerns: 5
Date range: 2016–2022
Stated actions: 2

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 Work and Pensions2

Health and Safety Executive2

Recipient name withheld2

Care Quality Commission1

D D Dodds and Son Ltd1

Hsb Engineering Insurance Services Limited1

Lancs & Cumbria Lifts (UK) Ltd1

Liftmaster Limited1

Lincs Firwood Co Ltd1

Serendipity Home1

The Garage Equipment Association Limited1

The Safety Assessment Federation1

West End Garage (Woking)1

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.

26 Sep2022
Norfolk
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to complete FLT thorough examinations when due
This report raised 10 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.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Implement scheduled servicing and annual thorough examinations for lifting equipment, supported by service agreements, automated alerts and maintenance tracking.
  Stated by Lincs Firewood Company Ltd & D D Dodd & Son LtdStated completed
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Lifting-equipment examination and servicing risks are addressed through service agreements, scheduled examinations, servicing, repairs and tracking systems.
  Stated by Lincs Firewood Company Ltd & D D Dodd & Son LtdExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Zachariah Nathaniel RICHARDSON · 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

Zachariah Nathaniel Richardson, aged 18, suffered fatal injuries after being found trapped between a forklift truck and a wall while working alone at a site. Concerns included his limited experience and recent forklift training, overdue examinations and defective or defeated safety devices on the forklift trucks, and wider shortcomings in health and safety systems and competence.

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
Failure to complete FLT thorough examinations when due
Wider context from the report
“2. The evidence was that the FLTs at the Elm Farm site were seven months overdue for the annual Thorough Examination and had undergone a service since February 2019. The seat safety switch device on the FLTs had been defeated at some point prior to the incident. The seat safety switch device on one of the FLTs was defective ”
Source location
Zachariah Nathaniel RICHARDSON · 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
Implement scheduled servicing and annual thorough examinations for lifting equipment, supported by service agreements, automated alerts and maintenance tracking.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Thorough Examination and Servicing of Plant”

Source location
Response from DAC Beachcroft
Page 2 · response
Published 7 October 2022
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
Lifting-equipment examination and servicing risks are addressed through service agreements, scheduled examinations, servicing, repairs and tracking systems.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Thorough Examination and Servicing of Plant”

Source location
Response from DAC Beachcroft
Page 2 · response
Published 7 October 2022
Open published response
27 Dec2018
Manchester South
Concerns raised3
1. Lack of a care home system for reviewing and passing lift examination details to the servicing company
2. Lack of clarity about informing engineers of and following up regulatory lift examination requirements
3. Failure to read, act on, and escalate regulatory lift examination findings
This report raised 5 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

Kenneth Roy Bardsley · 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

Kenneth Roy Bardsley died at Salford Royal Hospital on 30 January 2017 from multiple injuries sustained as a passenger in a lift that malfunctioned at Serendipity Care Home. The inquest concluded that his accidental death was contributed to by failure of the lift’s interior door mechanism. Concerns included gaps in lift-engineer qualification requirements, failures to read and act on regulatory examination findings, unclear communication and follow-up processes, and insufficient systems for lift servicing and examination records.

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 a care home system for reviewing and passing lift examination details to the servicing company
Wider context from the report
“5. That Serendipity Care Home did not have a system in place to ensure details from the lift examinations were read; considered and passed on to the lift servicing company; ”
Source location
Kenneth Roy Bardsley · 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 clarity about informing engineers of and following up regulatory lift examination requirements
Wider context from the report
“3. During the inquest evidence was given that within the specific lift company in this case and more widely, there was a lack of clarity as to how engineers should be made aware and follow up requirements made by engineers carrying out the regulatory lift examinations; ”
Source location
Kenneth Roy Bardsley · 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
Failure to read, act on, and escalate regulatory lift examination findings
Wider context from the report
“2. The evidence given to the inquest was that there was a gap in the system which meant that regulatory lift examinations could take place but not be read or acted upon, with no escalation process; ”
Source location
Kenneth Roy Bardsley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
10 May2016
Surrey
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to record lift tolerance levels for comparison by subsequent examiners
This report raised 6 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.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Issue technical instructions requiring surveyors to record pad-wear tolerance in thorough-examination reports for two-post vehicle lifting tables.
  Stated by Hsb Engineering Insurance Services LimitedStated completed
AI-generated summary

Peter William RICHARDSON · 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

On 27 September 2015, Peter William Richardson was working beneath a car on a two-post vehicle lift when the car became dislodged and fell onto him, causing fatal head injuries. The substantive concerns included the absence of formal guidance on safe tolerances and torque levels for safety-critical lift components, inadequate recording and training arrangements, and the practice of placing foreign objects between lift pads and vehicles to provide clearance.

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
Failure to record lift tolerance levels for comparison by subsequent examiners
Wider context from the report
“c) Safe tolerance should be considered at a LOLER ‘Thorough Examination’ however there is no guidance to be followed and there is no requirement for such tolerance levels to be recorded and as such the levels are not available to any subsequent examiner. ”
Source location
Peter William RICHARDSON · 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
Issue technical instructions requiring surveyors to record pad-wear tolerance in thorough-examination reports for two-post vehicle lifting tables.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the recommendations made during the inquest, HSB issued a technical document on the 3rd May 2017 to its engineering surveyors which instructed them to record the pad wear (tolerance) on the report of thorough examination for two post vehicle lifting tables, as suggested in the PFD report.”

Source location
Peter-Richardson-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 17 August 2017
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Failure to complete FLT thorough examinations when due

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

Concerns raised3

Lack of a care home system for reviewing and passing lift examination details to the servicing company

Lack of clarity about informing engineers of and following up regulatory lift examination requirements

Failure to read, act on, and escalate regulatory lift examination findings

Concerns raised1

Failure to record lift tolerance levels for comparison by subsequent examiners

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

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 1