Recipient

Sandman Signature Sheffield Quays Hotel

Pin Request correction

First report 29 Mar 2016•Latest report 29 Mar 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Venue. 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 Sandman Signature Sheffield Quays Hotel linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to Hilton Sheffield, now represented here by Sandman Signature Sheffield Quays Hotel.

    South Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Adam Ben Miles · 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

    Adam Ben Miles attended a Christmas party at the Hilton Hotel in Sheffield on 12 December 2015 and drowned after falling into the canal basin. The concerns included smoking being permitted near the canal, the lack of effective barriers separating people from the canal, and the absence of means of escape for anyone who fell in.

    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 Sandman Signature Sheffield Quays Hotel; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of means of escape from the canal for people who fall in

    Wider context from the report

    “[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) That smokers were allowed to smoke outside the hotel near the canal. (2) That there wasn't any rails or other effective barriers to segregate drinkers from the dangers of the canal (3) That the canal didn't have any means of escape for anyone who fell in. ”
    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 Sandman Signature Sheffield Quays Hotel; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Allowing smokers to smoke outside the hotel near the canal

    Wider context from the report

    “[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) That smokers were allowed to smoke outside the hotel near the canal. (2) That there wasn't any rails or other effective barriers to segregate drinkers from the dangers of the canal (3) That the canal didn't have any means of escape for anyone who fell in. ”
    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 Sandman Signature Sheffield Quays Hotel; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of rails or other effective barriers segregating drinkers from the canal

    Wider context from the report

    “[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) That smokers were allowed to smoke outside the hotel near the canal. (2) That there wasn't any rails or other effective barriers to segregate drinkers from the dangers of the canal (3) That the canal didn't have any means of escape for anyone who fell in. ”
    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