Recipient

Recipient name withheld

First report 10 May 2016•Latest report 10 May 2016

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
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 Recipient name withheld linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

10 May2016
Surrey
Concerns raised7
1. Failure to record lift tolerance levels for comparison by subsequent examiners
2. Failure to record vehicle-lift operator training
3. Failure to ensure lift users are appropriately competent to maintain the lift
1. Lack of formal guidance on safe tolerances for safety-critical elements of two-post lifts
2. Failure to provide guidance on required torque for safety-critical elements of Bendpak two-post lifts
3. Use of foreign objects between two-post lift pads and vehicles during lifting
4. Failure to provide guidance on safe tolerance levels for supplied two-post lifts
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

Peter William RICHARDSON · 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 27 September 2015, Peter William Richardson was working beneath a car on a two-post vehicle lift when the car became dislodged and fell onto him, causing fatal head injuries. The substantive concerns included the absence of formal guidance on safe tolerances and torque levels for safety-critical lift components, inadequate recording and training arrangements, and the practice of placing foreign objects between lift pads and vehicles to provide clearance.

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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to record lift tolerance levels for comparison by subsequent examiners
Wider context from the report
“c) Safe tolerance should be considered at a LOLER ‘Thorough Examination’ however there is no guidance to be followed and there is no requirement for such tolerance levels to be recorded and as such the levels are not available to any subsequent examiner. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to record vehicle-lift operator training
Wider context from the report
“d) Mr Richardson who operated the lift only received training on the specific lift at the point it was installed in 2012. All other users were subsequently trained by him in its use, which was not recorded and all users of the lift were expected to maintain the lift properly. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure lift users are appropriately competent to maintain the lift
Wider context from the report
“d) Mr Richardson who operated the lift only received training on the specific lift at the point it was installed in 2012. All other users were subsequently trained by him in its use, which was not recorded and all users of the lift were expected to maintain the lift properly. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of formal guidance on safe tolerances for safety-critical elements of two-post lifts
Wider context from the report
“a) No formal guidance exists as to safe tolerances of safety critical elements of two-post lifts. The Court heard from two HSE witnesses and a ‘Thorough examiner’ who examined the lift for the purposes of complying with LOLER 1988, who gave differing views on what was a safe tolerance or ‘play’ for an extended lift arm. Further, it was accepted that this was an issue of concern to the HSE, but as yet remained to be dealt with. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide guidance on required torque for safety-critical elements of Bendpak two-post lifts
Wider context from the report
“b) The supplier of the Bendpak Lift in the UK, Liftmaster, do not supply guidance as to the required torque for safety critical elements of their two-post lifts and neither do they provide guidance on safe tolerance levels. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Use of foreign objects between two-post lift pads and vehicles during lifting
Wider context from the report
“e) It is a known practice for a variety of different objects (for example a piece of wood) to be placed on top of the lift pads between the pad and the vehicle when it is lifted in order to provide clearance and to assist with difficult jobs such as removing a car under-shield. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide guidance on safe tolerance levels for supplied two-post lifts
Wider context from the report
“b) The supplier of the Bendpak Lift in the UK, Liftmaster, do not supply guidance as to the required torque for safety critical elements of their two-post lifts and neither do they provide guidance on safe tolerance levels. ”
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 raised7

Failure to record lift tolerance levels for comparison by subsequent examiners

Failure to record vehicle-lift operator training

Failure to ensure lift users are appropriately competent to maintain the lift

Lack of formal guidance on safe tolerances for safety-critical elements of two-post lifts

Failure to provide guidance on required torque for safety-critical elements of Bendpak two-post lifts

Use of foreign objects between two-post lift pads and vehicles during lifting

Failure to provide guidance on safe tolerance levels for supplied two-post lifts