Recipient

Oadby & Wigston Borough Council

Pin Request correction

First report 15 Feb 2016•Latest report 15 Feb 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Local government · English district council. 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 Oadby & Wigston Borough Council linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Leicester City and South Leicestershire

    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 Oadby & Wigston Borough Council; 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 Oadby & Wigston Borough Council; 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
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