Recipient

J Sainsbury plc

First report 13 Feb 2015•Latest report 13 Aug 2024

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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

Reports: 4
Published responses: 0%
Concerns addressed: 0
Stated actions: 0

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 J Sainsbury plc linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

13 Aug2024
Inner North London
Concerns raised5
1. Failure of product appearance and packaging to avoid confusion with food
2. Production of laundry tablets/pods and packaging that can be confused with food by people with cognitive impairment
3. Lack of packaging design features that make accessing laundry tablets/pods difficult
1. Lack of packaging safety features restricting access to laundry capsules
2. Food-imitation regulations insufficiently protective of people with cognitive impairment or insufficiently rigorously applied
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Elizabeth Van Der Drift · 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

Elizabeth Van Der Drift, who had dementia, accessed brightly coloured laundry detergent capsules on the night of 13/14 March 2024, apparently mistaking them for sweets, and bit into at least one. She was taken to hospital and died on 19 March 2024 despite treatment. The report raised concerns that the product’s colours, appearance and packaging could lead to accidental ingestion by people with dementia or other cognitive impairment, and that its packaging lacked a safety feature making access particularly difficult.

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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of product appearance and packaging to avoid confusion with food
Wider context from the report
“(1) The product in question, Sainsbury’s Tropical Escape Bio Laundry Capsules, due to its eye-catching colours, appearance, and packaging, is being confused with food and risks being accidently ingested by those with dementia or other cognitive impairment (as well as children). (2) There was no safety feature observed on the packaging that made accessing the content particularly difficult, which increases the risk of accidental or inadvertent ingestion. ”
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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Production of laundry tablets/pods and packaging that can be confused with food by people with cognitive impairment
Wider context from the report
“(1) During the course of hearing the evidence I was shown a picture of the packaging for the laundry tablets/pods in question. The packaging, in this instance, was predominantly bright pink and white, with orange, yellow and green also present. One witness (a carer experienced in caring for those living with dementia) gave me her view that the packaging bore more than a passing resemblance to a bag of sweets, and she considered that this was more likely to be the case when viewed from the point of view of a person living with dementia or some other cognitive impairment. In my view, the packaging of this particular product is not alone among similar products, that also opt for bright, eye-catching colours. It was for this reason that I formed the view that sending this report to the individual manufacturer/retailer (under whose brand the product was labelled) would be short-sighted. The employment of eye-catching and bright colours appears to be an industry-wide phenomenon. It has long been acknowledged that products of this nature can pose risks to children; however, there appears to be less acknowledgement of the risks posed to those living with dementia or other forms of cognitive impairment. In terms of the laundry tablets/pods themselves, I note that these have a jelly-like appearance and again I regard them as being colourful and potentially sweet-like in their appearance. This again has the serious potential to render a highly toxic/hazardous product as appealing to those with dementia or other cognitive impairment (as well as children). There is a wealth of material available (media reports, scientific studies and research etc.) to document the relatively frequency that products of this nature are accidentally or inadvertently ingested. I am well aware of The Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1989, UKSI 1989 No. 1291 and note Regulation 4, in particular. However, it seems to me either that the regulations themselves have insufficient regard to those living with dementia or other cognitive impairment or that the application of the regulations is not approached with sufficient rigour. The overarching concern here is that laundry tablets/pods and their packaging are being produced in a way that, by virtue of their bright colouring, appearance, and packaging, are being confused with food by people living with dementia or other cognitive impairment. The issue is, in my opinion, compounded when one considers that the products themselves are far from innocuous in the event of their accidental ingestion. ”
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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of packaging design features that make accessing laundry tablets/pods difficult
Wider context from the report
“(2) In this case, I also noted that there was no obvious design feature, in terms of the packaging, that makes accessing the content particularly difficult for someone with even the most basic of manual dexterity. In my view, this only adds to the risks. ”
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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of packaging safety features restricting access to laundry capsules
Wider context from the report
“(1) The product in question, Sainsbury’s Tropical Escape Bio Laundry Capsules, due to its eye-catching colours, appearance, and packaging, is being confused with food and risks being accidently ingested by those with dementia or other cognitive impairment (as well as children). (2) There was no safety feature observed on the packaging that made accessing the content particularly difficult, which increases the risk of accidental or inadvertent ingestion. ”
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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Food-imitation regulations insufficiently protective of people with cognitive impairment or insufficiently rigorously applied
Wider context from the report
“(1) During the course of hearing the evidence I was shown a picture of the packaging for the laundry tablets/pods in question. The packaging, in this instance, was predominantly bright pink and white, with orange, yellow and green also present. One witness (a carer experienced in caring for those living with dementia) gave me her view that the packaging bore more than a passing resemblance to a bag of sweets, and she considered that this was more likely to be the case when viewed from the point of view of a person living with dementia or some other cognitive impairment. In my view, the packaging of this particular product is not alone among similar products, that also opt for bright, eye-catching colours. It was for this reason that I formed the view that sending this report to the individual manufacturer/retailer (under whose brand the product was labelled) would be short-sighted. The employment of eye-catching and bright colours appears to be an industry-wide phenomenon. It has long been acknowledged that products of this nature can pose risks to children; however, there appears to be less acknowledgement of the risks posed to those living with dementia or other forms of cognitive impairment. In terms of the laundry tablets/pods themselves, I note that these have a jelly-like appearance and again I regard them as being colourful and potentially sweet-like in their appearance. This again has the serious potential to render a highly toxic/hazardous product as appealing to those with dementia or other cognitive impairment (as well as children). There is a wealth of material available (media reports, scientific studies and research etc.) to document the relatively frequency that products of this nature are accidentally or inadvertently ingested. I am well aware of The Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1989, UKSI 1989 No. 1291 and note Regulation 4, in particular. However, it seems to me either that the regulations themselves have insufficient regard to those living with dementia or other cognitive impairment or that the application of the regulations is not approached with sufficient rigour. The overarching concern here is that laundry tablets/pods and their packaging are being produced in a way that, by virtue of their bright colouring, appearance, and packaging, are being confused with food by people living with dementia or other cognitive impairment. The issue is, in my opinion, compounded when one considers that the products themselves are far from innocuous in the event of their accidental ingestion. ”
Open source report
15 Feb2016
Leicester City and South Leicestershire
Concerns raised2
1. Lack of auditory warnings for opening rear lift doors
2. Lack of visual markings distinguishing rear lift doors
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Belinda Jane Wise · 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

Belinda Jane Wise fell backwards when the unmarked rear doors of a lift opened, striking her head. She later developed a large subdural haemorrhage and died five days later. The principal concern was that the lift had no signs or auditory warnings indicating that the rear doors would open, and consideration was given to making the doors more distinguishable and providing an audible warning.

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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of auditory warnings for opening rear lift doors
Wider context from the report
“It was a finding of the jury that there were no signs or auditory warnings within the lift to indicate that the rear doors would open. Evidence taken from the Sainsbury's store and from the Borough Council investigation confirmed that such warnings are not standard or mandatory. In this instance, it was clear from the evidence that the deceased did not appreciate that the part of the lift that she was leaning was actually the rear doors, as they were not marked in any way. Further consideration should be given to the possibility of making the doors more apparent and distinguishable from the rest of the interior, and also to the sounding of a warning message (that may assist visually impaired passengers). ”
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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of visual markings distinguishing rear lift doors
Wider context from the report
“It was a finding of the jury that there were no signs or auditory warnings within the lift to indicate that the rear doors would open. Evidence taken from the Sainsbury's store and from the Borough Council investigation confirmed that such warnings are not standard or mandatory. In this instance, it was clear from the evidence that the deceased did not appreciate that the part of the lift that she was leaning was actually the rear doors, as they were not marked in any way. Further consideration should be given to the possibility of making the doors more apparent and distinguishable from the rest of the interior, and also to the sounding of a warning message (that may assist visually impaired passengers). ”
Open source report
20 Aug2015
Manchester South
Concerns raised2
1. Unsafe positioning of the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the mini roundabout
2. Lack of pedestrian barriers protecting the footpath by the mini roundabout
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Joyce Plested · 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

Joyce Plested was riding her mobility scooter near a Sainsbury store when she was struck by a car while crossing Curzon Road, sustaining an injury that later led to her death. The report raised concerns about the crossing’s position near a busy mini roundabout and suggested that moving it and protecting the footpath with barriers would create a safer environment.

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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unsafe positioning of the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the mini roundabout
Wider context from the report
“Immediately outside the doors to the store, there is a mini roundabout and across two of the exit roads therefrom there are “Zebra Crossings”. This makes this a very ‘busy’ junction and there are numerous matters to which both drivers and pedestrians have to give their full attention. In evidence at the inquest, the expert “Crash reconstruction” Police Officer confirmed that if the crossing which traverses Curzon Road were to be positioned further away from the mini roundabout and the footpath by the roundabout to be protected by pedestrian barriers, this would be a much safer environment. The current position means that the crossing is on land owned by Sainsbury PLC whereas if it were moved further down it would be on the public highway maintained by Trafford MBC. It therefore seems to me that it would be a relatively simple and hugely beneficial solution, simply to move the crossing to the suggested safer position. ”
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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of pedestrian barriers protecting the footpath by the mini roundabout
Wider context from the report
“Immediately outside the doors to the store, there is a mini roundabout and across two of the exit roads therefrom there are “Zebra Crossings”. This makes this a very ‘busy’ junction and there are numerous matters to which both drivers and pedestrians have to give their full attention. In evidence at the inquest, the expert “Crash reconstruction” Police Officer confirmed that if the crossing which traverses Curzon Road were to be positioned further away from the mini roundabout and the footpath by the roundabout to be protected by pedestrian barriers, this would be a much safer environment. The current position means that the crossing is on land owned by Sainsbury PLC whereas if it were moved further down it would be on the public highway maintained by Trafford MBC. It therefore seems to me that it would be a relatively simple and hugely beneficial solution, simply to move the crossing to the suggested safer position. ”
Open source report
13 Feb2015
Avon
Concerns raised2
1. Failure of dispatch staff to continuously see incoming incidents
2. High-risk stretch of river
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Christopher David TAYLOR · 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

Christopher David TAYLOR fell into the River Avon in Bath after being out drinking with friends and was unable to get out. He went under the water despite efforts by emergency services to rescue him. Concerns included a delay in dispatching the emergency response, inadequate visibility of immediate incidents, and the absence of life buoy rings and suitable fencing along a high-risk stretch of riverbank.

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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of dispatch staff to continuously see incoming incidents
Wider context from the report
“1. In this particular case it appears that the team in dispatch were not aware of the immediate incident which resulted in a delay in it being actioned by them. Staff need to be able to see at all times a screen which displays incoming incidents for them to be able to action in an appropriate manner. ”
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 J Sainsbury plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
High-risk stretch of river
Wider context from the report
“2. I appreciate that Sainsburys were not represented at the inquest and I do not have any evidence from them in relation to their plans for the bank next to the River Avon in Bath however I would ask that they consider their responsibility as land owner along this stretch of river in question which falls within the high risk area. Specifically I would ask that they liaise with Bath and North East Somerset Local Authority in relation to potentially the provision of a vandal proof life buoy station along that stretch of river. ”
Open source report

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised5

Failure of product appearance and packaging to avoid confusion with food

Production of laundry tablets/pods and packaging that can be confused with food by people with cognitive impairment

Lack of packaging design features that make accessing laundry tablets/pods difficult

Lack of packaging safety features restricting access to laundry capsules

Food-imitation regulations insufficiently protective of people with cognitive impairment or insufficiently rigorously applied

Concerns raised2

Lack of auditory warnings for opening rear lift doors

Lack of visual markings distinguishing rear lift doors

Concerns raised2

Unsafe positioning of the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the mini roundabout

Lack of pedestrian barriers protecting the footpath by the mini roundabout

Concerns raised2

Failure of dispatch staff to continuously see incoming incidents

High-risk stretch of river