Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre

Private and voluntary organisations · Venue

Pin Request correction

First report 18 Dec 2025•Latest report 18 Dec 2025

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

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

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Kent and Medway

    AI-generated summary

    Stephen Paul PAGE · 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 17 August 2025, Stephen Page drove alone to the multi-storey car park at Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre and died from traumatic injuries sustained there. The report identified concern that the car park’s operational alarm was visual only, displayed for a few seconds, and could be missed by the CCTV operator, potentially losing an opportunity for staff to intervene. There was no evidence of a delayed response in this particular instance.

    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 Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of sufficiently conspicuous alarm alerts for electronic sensor activation

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Written evidence from a senior member of staff at MAPP (who provide security management at Hempstead Valley) set out that there is an electronic sensor system in place ████████The evidence was that, "When the sensor beam is broken, the corresponding CCTV camera automatically moves to the activation point and displays a visual alert marked 'Alarm'. The camera remains focused on the area to allow for monitoring if an operator is present." The investigating officer from Kent Police, said in their statement, "This 'alarm' is visual only and displays for a few seconds. Due to the number of screens, this could have been easily missed by the CCTV operator." For the avoidance of doubt, the evidence suggested that the alarm system was working and operational on 17 August 2025. Further, there was no evidence of a delayed response in this particular instance. However, it is not difficult to envisage (particularly given that there is no audible alarm) a situation in which a triggering of the 'alarm' could be missed and an opportunity for staff to intervene being lost. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

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