Recipient

Cadent Gas Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 17 Jan 2020•Latest report 17 Jan 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
3stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Cadent Gas Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  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. The report was sent to Cadent Gas Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    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 ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Cadent Gas Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    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 ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
33%67%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026