Recipient

Park Holidays UK Limited

First report 27 Feb 2019•Latest report 27 Feb 2019

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
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 4
Stated actions: 5

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

5stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

27 Feb2019
West Sussex
Concerns raised4
1. Failure to directly inform site contractors of Lake rules
2. Lack of a physical barrier preventing young children entering the Lake
3. Inadequate warning signage at Lake entry areas
1. Failure to provide pictorial signage for people unable to read
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Erect pictorial “no swimming” signs alongside existing written warning signs.
  Stated planned
2. Action
  Install additional warning signs around the Park, increasing signage from eight to 24 signs, including signs at both accessible Lake edges.
  Stated completed
Respondent positions 6
1. Position
  The existing number and placement of warning signs are considered adequate to highlight deep-water dangers and prohibit swimming.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
1. Position
  It is considered impractical to warn every contractor about lake dangers because risks and assessments are limited to contractors performing relevant tasks.
  Unable to act
2. Position
  Physical barriers around the lake are considered impractical because fisheries concessions require access for fishing and some lakes support water skiing.
  Unable to act
3. Position
  Contractor competence checks, task-specific risk assessments, and existing signage are considered sufficient to address contractors’ awareness of lake rules.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
4. Position
  Children unable to read are considered adequately protected by required supervision and parental advice in the safety information pack.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
5. Position
  Physical barriers are considered unnecessary because natural vegetation barriers and parental safety advice control the risk of children entering the lake.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

SHANE GRAY · 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 25 July 2018, Shane Gray entered Lythorne Lake for a swim after work, got into difficulties, and drowned. The concerns included inadequate warning signage, no physical barrier near an area intended for families with young children, text-only signage, and contractors not being directly informed of lake rules.

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 Park Holidays UK Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to directly inform site contractors of Lake rules
Wider context from the report
“(4) Contractors who are working on the site are not directly made aware of the rules relating to the Lakes. Reliance is placed solely on these Contractors having seen the signs upon entering the Site. ”
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 Park Holidays UK Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a physical barrier preventing young children entering the Lake
Wider context from the report
“(2) The area close to the Lake (where the accident occurred) is to be occupied by families with young children and there is no physical barrier to prevent young children entering the Lake.. ”
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 Park Holidays UK Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate warning signage at Lake entry areas
Wider context from the report
“(1) That there was inadequate signage in this particular area of the Site where Shane entered the Lake warning him that Swimming was not permitted. ”
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 Park Holidays UK Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide pictorial signage for people unable to read
Wider context from the report
“(3) The signage that is in place in other parts of the sites in a text format (with no pictorial form) and therefore this signage does not provide for those individuals who cannot read or for children who are not of a reading age. ”
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
Erect pictorial “no swimming” signs alongside existing written warning signs.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(3) The signage that is in place in other parts of the sites is in a text format (with no pictorial form) and therefore this signage does not provide for those individuals who cannot read or for children who are not of reading age”

Source location
2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019
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
Install additional warning signs around the Park, increasing signage from eight to 24 signs, including signs at both accessible Lake edges.

Verbatim wording from the response
“An Open Water Risk Assessment was carried out on 10 July 2018, before the incident. At that time, although extensive signage was in place at the Park, an action point was noted that the quantity of life rings and signage be reviewed. The new signage was ordered and delivered in August 2018 and was installed during August / early September. There are now 24 signs around the Park with two”

Source location
2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019
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 number and placement of warning signs are considered adequate to highlight deep-water dangers and prohibit swimming.

Verbatim wording from the response
“signs on the Lake's edges, one on the "camp site side" and one on the opposing side along a designated pedestrian path. There are no signs along the edges that border the A27 due to the thick trees that border the lake/road.”

Source location
2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019
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
It is considered impractical to warn every contractor about lake dangers because risks and assessments are limited to contractors performing relevant tasks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(4) Contractors who are working on the site are not directly made aware of the rules relating to the Lakes. Reliance is placed solely on these Contractors having seen the signs upon entering the site”

Source location
2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2019
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
Physical barriers around the lake are considered impractical because fisheries concessions require access for fishing and some lakes support water skiing.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Company does not consider it to be practical to erect physical barriers around the Lake. Some of the lakes at the Park, including the Lake, are leased as syndicate lakes to nearby fisheries which means that the fisheries have a concession and are allowed to fish on the lakes. One of the lakes at the Park is also used for water skiing.”

Source location
2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019
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
Contractor competence checks, task-specific risk assessments, and existing signage are considered sufficient to address contractors’ awareness of lake rules.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Company carries out open water risk assessments for staff safety. These primarily relate to the Fisheries Wardens who do, on occasion, have need to access the water and/or lake edges. In this regard, the Company provides these wardens with life jackets to be used when undertaking such tasks. The Company does not agree that it would be practical to warn every contractor on site as to the dangers of the lakes, as a rule. The Company retains the services of contractors to carry out a number of different tasks, such as refuse collection and cleaning for example. It would be inappropriate to alert all contractors to all risks at the Park. Risk assessments are specific to the expected tasks and are only provided to staff who are to work directly on the lakes.”

Source location
2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2019
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
Children unable to read are considered adequately protected by required supervision and parental advice in the safety information pack.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(3) The signage that is in place in other parts of the sites is in a text format (with no pictorial form) and therefore this signage does not provide for those individuals who cannot read or for children who are not of reading age”

Source location
2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019
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
Physical barriers are considered unnecessary because natural vegetation barriers and parental safety advice control the risk of children entering the lake.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Company does not agree a physical barrier is necessary in any event. The lakes are viewed as having "natural barriers" where they are surrounded by hedges, brambles or vegetation. Cleared areas around the lakes are manmade in order to allow the fishermen and water skiers access to the lakes. We would also note that it is not a legal requirement for bodies of water to be fenced off.”

Source location
2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019
Open published response

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 raised4

Failure to directly inform site contractors of Lake rules

Lack of a physical barrier preventing young children entering the Lake

Inadequate warning signage at Lake entry areas

Failure to provide pictorial signage for people unable to read

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 6