Recipient

Canary Wharf Management Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 8 May 2024•Latest report 8 May 2024

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
1

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 Canary Wharf Management Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Sean Patrick O’CONNOR · 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

    Sean O’Connor was electrocuted shortly after 10am on 24 November 2021 while changing a heat pump flow switch terminal during work in London. The report raised concern that lone workers might not receive the checks contemplated by the risk assessment, and that routine site discussions should remind workers whether checks are required during the day.

    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 Canary Wharf Management Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure required daytime checks on lone workers

    Wider context from the report

    “I heard evidence at inquest that, as he was regarded as a lone worker, Sean O’Connor could and, according to the risk assessment method statement (RAMS), should have asked a CWML colleague to come to check on him during the day. He did not ask for such a check and, although a CWML employee thought of doing so, that person was busy and so did not. Whilst such a check is likely to have taken place too late in the day to have changed the outcome for Mr O’Connor, that might be different for another lone worker. Several witnesses gave evidence that discussions take place with every worker coming on site as a matter of routine, covering such matters as where the worker is meant to be located, the exact nature of the job and so forth. The CWML director who gave evidence at inquest agreed with me that it would be a straight forward matter to include within that as a point always for brief discussion, whether any checks are required during the day. In this way, if the operative forgets to ask, the discussion can act as a reminder. ”
    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

    Update the Contractor Handbook and Lone Working Policy to apply to contractors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition to the above, CWML will be updating the Contractor Handbook and the Lone Working Policy to apply to contractors.”

    Source location

    Response from Canary Wharf Management
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 May 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

    Trial a welfare-check process for lone workers applying for work authorisation, including prompts, competent-person checks, and system recording.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Notwithstanding the above, and as part of a process of continuous improvement, CWML has decided to trial a new feature to apply to WA, beginning July 2024. The arrangements will include:”

    Source location

    Response from Canary Wharf Management
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 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

    Review the six-month trial, assess its effectiveness, and decide whether further changes are needed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “These arrangements will apply in addition to the independent contractors' procedures for lone working. The trial is intended to run for 6 months at the end of which CWML will review the results, consider their effectiveness and decide whether to implement some or all of the trial or make any further changes.”

    Source location

    Response from Canary Wharf Management
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 May 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

    The existing risk-based system and checks are considered adequate, and broader checks could divert resources from higher-risk work.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “CWML’s approach to facilitating access to its premises by independent contractors reflects what it understands to be recognised practice. CWML is not aware of any concerns raised by contractors (including Mitsubishi) before the incident involving Mr O'Connor. The existing CWML system prioritises checks based on risk (higher risk works requiring a PtW involve mandatory checks and are rarely performed by lone workers). CWML is mindful of the need to avoid potentially undermining the strengths of the system by diverting resource away from higher risk works.”

    Source location

    Response from Canary Wharf Management
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 2024

    Open published response
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