10 Oct 2017 Ms Tahnie Lee Martin · Prevention of Future Deaths report Black Country
View report summary
Concerns raised 6 Failure of building survey reports to identify areas not accessed View source Failure to remove or safely maintain structures on the plant room roof View source Failure of building inspections and surveys to identify structures on the plant room roof View source Lack of mandatory requirements for surveyors to advise clients about risks of unaccessed areas View source Failure to indicate the necessity or urgency of accessing unaccessed building areas View source Lack of mandatory requirements for surveyors to refer to areas of a building not accessed View source See 3 more concerns
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
Ms Tahnie Lee Martin · 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
Tahnie Lee Martin, aged 29, died after being struck by a large wooden panel that became detached from the roof of the disused Blackrock building during strong winds on 23 February 2017. The principal concerns were that inspections did not identify two hazardous roof structures, and that surveyors were not required to report inaccessible areas or advise clients about the risks of not obtaining access and subsequent inspection.
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 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of building survey reports to identify areas not accessed
Wider context from the report “(1) Although there had been several recent inspections/surveys carried out in respect of the Blackrock building from 2011-2015, none of these had identified the presence of the two structures on the plant room roof. As a result, although steps had been taken to repair/replace other rotten timber and corroded metal structures/fittings on the roof by 23 February 2017, nothing had been done either to remove or to safely maintain the two structures on the plant room roof for at least 19 years, making them inherently unsafe and hazardous.
(2) Furthermore, although it seems that the plant room roof would have been difficult to access during these inspections/surveys, none of the Building Surveyors who carried out these or these surveys/inspections had referenced this fact in their reports nor indicated the necessity or urgency of doing so (considering the condition of the main roof generally).
I was informed by one of the Building Surveyor witnesses at the inquest that it was not unusual for parts of a commercial building to remain unaccessed during a commercial building survey. Although he, personally, did not consider it acceptable for a Building Surveyor not to mention any areas of a building not accessed (and, indeed, to provide advice about the steps required and cost to achieve this) in the survey report, it appears that:
Neither (1) is it a mandatory requirement in the current RICS Guidance Note Building Surveys and Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property (4th Edition) for a Surveyor to refer to areas of a building not accessed;
Nor (2) is it a mandatory requirement for a Surveyor to advise a Client about the specific risks of not obtaining such access and/or subsequent inspection.
” 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 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to remove or safely maintain structures on the plant room roof
Wider context from the report “(1) Although there had been several recent inspections/surveys carried out in respect of the Blackrock building from 2011-2015, none of these had identified the presence of the two structures on the plant room roof. As a result, although steps had been taken to repair/replace other rotten timber and corroded metal structures/fittings on the roof by 23 February 2017, nothing had been done either to remove or to safely maintain the two structures on the plant room roof for at least 19 years , making them inherently unsafe and hazardous .
(2) Furthermore, although it seems that the plant room roof would have been difficult to access during these inspections/surveys, none of the Building Surveyors who carried out these or these surveys/inspections had referenced this fact in their reports nor indicated the necessity or urgency of doing so (considering the condition of the main roof generally).
I was informed by one of the Building Surveyor witnesses at the inquest that it was not unusual for parts of a commercial building to remain unaccessed during a commercial building survey. Although he, personally, did not consider it acceptable for a Building Surveyor not to mention any areas of a building not accessed (and, indeed, to provide advice about the steps required and cost to achieve this) in the survey report, it appears that:
Neither (1) is it a mandatory requirement in the current RICS Guidance Note Building Surveys and Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property (4th Edition) for a Surveyor to refer to areas of a building not accessed;
Nor (2) is it a mandatory requirement for a Surveyor to advise a Client about the specific risks of not obtaining such access and/or subsequent inspection.
” 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 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of building inspections and surveys to identify structures on the plant room roof
Wider context from the report “(1) Although there had been several recent inspections/surveys carried out in respect of the Blackrock building from 2011-2015, none of these had identified the presence of the two structures on the plant room roof . As a result, although steps had been taken to repair/replace other rotten timber and corroded metal structures/fittings on the roof by 23 February 2017, nothing had been done either to remove or to safely maintain the two structures on the plant room roof for at least 19 years, making them inherently unsafe and hazardous.
(2) Furthermore, although it seems that the plant room roof would have been difficult to access during these inspections/surveys, none of the Building Surveyors who carried out these or these surveys/inspections had referenced this fact in their reports nor indicated the necessity or urgency of doing so (considering the condition of the main roof generally).
I was informed by one of the Building Surveyor witnesses at the inquest that it was not unusual for parts of a commercial building to remain unaccessed during a commercial building survey. Although he, personally, did not consider it acceptable for a Building Surveyor not to mention any areas of a building not accessed (and, indeed, to provide advice about the steps required and cost to achieve this) in the survey report, it appears that:
Neither (1) is it a mandatory requirement in the current RICS Guidance Note Building Surveys and Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property (4th Edition) for a Surveyor to refer to areas of a building not accessed;
Nor (2) is it a mandatory requirement for a Surveyor to advise a Client about the specific risks of not obtaining such access and/or subsequent inspection.
” 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 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of mandatory requirements for surveyors to advise clients about risks of unaccessed areas
Wider context from the report “(1) Although there had been several recent inspections/surveys carried out in respect of the Blackrock building from 2011-2015, none of these had identified the presence of the two structures on the plant room roof. As a result, although steps had been taken to repair/replace other rotten timber and corroded metal structures/fittings on the roof by 23 February 2017, nothing had been done either to remove or to safely maintain the two structures on the plant room roof for at least 19 years, making them inherently unsafe and hazardous.
(2) Furthermore, although it seems that the plant room roof would have been difficult to access during these inspections/surveys, none of the Building Surveyors who carried out these or these surveys/inspections had referenced this fact in their reports nor indicated the necessity or urgency of doing so (considering the condition of the main roof generally).
I was informed by one of the Building Surveyor witnesses at the inquest that it was not unusual for parts of a commercial building to remain unaccessed during a commercial building survey. Although he, personally, did not consider it acceptable for a Building Surveyor not to mention any areas of a building not accessed (and, indeed, to provide advice about the steps required and cost to achieve this) in the survey report, it appears that:
Neither (1) is it a mandatory requirement in the current RICS Guidance Note Building Surveys and Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property (4th Edition) for a Surveyor to refer to areas of a building not accessed;
Nor (2) is it a mandatory requirement for a Surveyor to advise a Client about the specific risks of not obtaining such access and/or subsequent inspection .
” 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 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to indicate the necessity or urgency of accessing unaccessed building areas
Wider context from the report “(1) Although there had been several recent inspections/surveys carried out in respect of the Blackrock building from 2011-2015, none of these had identified the presence of the two structures on the plant room roof. As a result, although steps had been taken to repair/replace other rotten timber and corroded metal structures/fittings on the roof by 23 February 2017, nothing had been done either to remove or to safely maintain the two structures on the plant room roof for at least 19 years, making them inherently unsafe and hazardous.
(2) Furthermore, although it seems that the plant room roof would have been difficult to access during these inspections/surveys, none of the Building Surveyors who carried out these or these surveys/inspections had referenced this fact in their reports nor indicated the necessity or urgency of doing so (considering the condition of the main roof generally).
I was informed by one of the Building Surveyor witnesses at the inquest that it was not unusual for parts of a commercial building to remain unaccessed during a commercial building survey. Although he, personally, did not consider it acceptable for a Building Surveyor not to mention any areas of a building not accessed (and, indeed, to provide advice about the steps required and cost to achieve this) in the survey report, it appears that:
Neither (1) is it a mandatory requirement in the current RICS Guidance Note Building Surveys and Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property (4th Edition) for a Surveyor to refer to areas of a building not accessed;
Nor (2) is it a mandatory requirement for a Surveyor to advise a Client about the specific risks of not obtaining such access and/or subsequent inspection.
” 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 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of mandatory requirements for surveyors to refer to areas of a building not accessed
Wider context from the report “(1) Although there had been several recent inspections/surveys carried out in respect of the Blackrock building from 2011-2015, none of these had identified the presence of the two structures on the plant room roof. As a result, although steps had been taken to repair/replace other rotten timber and corroded metal structures/fittings on the roof by 23 February 2017, nothing had been done either to remove or to safely maintain the two structures on the plant room roof for at least 19 years, making them inherently unsafe and hazardous.
(2) Furthermore, although it seems that the plant room roof would have been difficult to access during these inspections/surveys, none of the Building Surveyors who carried out these or these surveys/inspections had referenced this fact in their reports nor indicated the necessity or urgency of doing so (considering the condition of the main roof generally).
I was informed by one of the Building Surveyor witnesses at the inquest that it was not unusual for parts of a commercial building to remain unaccessed during a commercial building survey. Although he, personally, did not consider it acceptable for a Building Surveyor not to mention any areas of a building not accessed (and, indeed, to provide advice about the steps required and cost to achieve this) in the survey report, it appears that:
Neither (1) is it a mandatory requirement in the current RICS Guidance Note Building Surveys and Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property (4th Edition) for a Surveyor to refer to areas of a building not accessed ;
Nor (2) is it a mandatory requirement for a Surveyor to advise a Client about the specific risks of not obtaining such access and/or subsequent inspection.
” Open source report
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations