Recipient

Family

Pin Request correction

First report 10 Nov 2014•Latest report 10 Nov 2014

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

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.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Myra Goldman · 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

    Myra Goldman died after a palisade gate fell on her. The Jury concluded that the gate fell because of fatigue of the lower right-hand hinged eye bolt and the configuration of the lugs and hinge pins; concerns were raised that this configuration placed most of the gate’s load on one hinge and that the relevant standard should be reviewed.

    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 Family; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to distribute gate weight between hinges

    Wider context from the report

    “The inversion of the upper hinge pin is not an uncommon practice and is intended to prevent a gate from being easily lifted off its hinges. BS 1722-12:2006 specification for steel palisade fences which states that ‘hinges shall be designed so that it is impossible to remove the gates by lifting at the hinges when they are in the shut and locked position’. The standard gives examples of hinge arrangements and does not specifically preclude this method. In the opinion of HM Specialist Inspector (Mechanical Engineering) of the Health & Safety Executive who gave evidence at the Inquest ‘the common sense approach is to spread the load’ between hinges by orientating them the same way rather than putting the significant majority of the weight of the gate onto one hinge only and ‘to prevent the gate from being easily lifted off, a proprietary method should be used such as double – lug hinge or anti-theft collars or split pins’. The preference of HM Specialist Inspector was for the standard to be ‘changed’. Any change can only be considered / implemented at a review meeting of the British Standards Institute. ”
    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 Family; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to use a proprietary method to prevent gate removal by lifting at the hinges

    Wider context from the report

    “The inversion of the upper hinge pin is not an uncommon practice and is intended to prevent a gate from being easily lifted off its hinges. BS 1722-12:2006 specification for steel palisade fences which states that ‘hinges shall be designed so that it is impossible to remove the gates by lifting at the hinges when they are in the shut and locked position’. The standard gives examples of hinge arrangements and does not specifically preclude this method. In the opinion of HM Specialist Inspector (Mechanical Engineering) of the Health & Safety Executive who gave evidence at the Inquest ‘the common sense approach is to spread the load’ between hinges by orientating them the same way rather than putting the significant majority of the weight of the gate onto one hinge only and ‘to prevent the gate from being easily lifted off, a proprietary method should be used such as double – lug hinge or anti-theft collars or split pins’. The preference of HM Specialist Inspector was for the standard to be ‘changed’. Any change can only be considered / implemented at a review meeting of the British Standards Institute. ”
    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

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

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
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