Recipient

Savills

First report 21 Nov 2013•Latest report 21 Nov 2013

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

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

  1. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Lisa Jane CLAYTON · 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

    Lisa Jane Clayton had severe clinical depression and a history of self-harm attempts. On 27 June 2012, she went missing from home and was found at the foot of The Spindles car park after being seen on the wall surrounding its seventh floor. The principal concerns were that the wall and rails provided insufficient prevention of access, CCTV monitoring and security-control-room staffing were inadequate, and previous concerns about suicide attempts at the location had not led to sufficient action.

    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 Savills; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the wall rails to prevent climbing onto the car park wall

    Wider context from the report

    “1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”
    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 Savills; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient CCTV monitoring of access to and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor

    Wider context from the report

    “1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”
    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 Savills; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to take direct action in response to identified safety concerns

    Wider context from the report

    “1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”
    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 Savills; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient security control-room staffing for monitoring and coordination duties

    Wider context from the report

    “1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”
    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 Savills; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to prevent the low metal barrier from providing a foothold for climbing onto the car park wall

    Wider context from the report

    “1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”
    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 Savills; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Risk of acts and attempts to take one's own life at the car park location

    Wider context from the report

    “1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”
    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