Thames Water Utilities Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company

Request correction

First report 22 Jun 2022•Latest report 22 Jun 2022

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 3
Stated actions: 6

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Thames Water Utilities Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

22 Jun2022
North London
Concerns raised4
1. Lack of lighting beside the stream and railway fence
2. Lack of signs identifying the stream, its depth and warnings of danger
3. Lack of signs assisting with locating a way out from the venue grounds
1. Inadequate fencing preventing ingress to the railway track
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Investigate options to improve the path and bank at location 5, including assessing lighting levels.
2. Action
  Install New River Path warning signage beside the location 1 kissing gate.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Lighting on venue grounds is Alexandra Palace’s responsibility, while railway fencing is Network Rail’s responsibility.
  Redirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Connor Peter Marron · 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

Connor Peter Marron was struck and fatally injured by a train on 2 January 2022 near Hornsey Railway Station after leaving a public house to return to Alexander Palace. Concerns included inadequate lighting and signage near the stream and railway fence, and a fence that was not adequate to prevent access to the railway track.

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 Thames Water Utilities Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of lighting beside the stream and railway fence
Wider context from the report
“1. There was no lighting beside the stream or the railway fence, nor any signs identifying the stream, its depth and any warning of danger. ”
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 Thames Water Utilities Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of signs identifying the stream, its depth and warnings of danger
Wider context from the report
“1. There was no lighting beside the stream or the railway fence, nor any signs identifying the stream, its depth and any warning of danger. ”
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 Thames Water Utilities Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of signs assisting with locating a way out from the venue grounds
Wider context from the report
“2. There were no signs in that area to assist with locating a way out from that part of the venue's grounds. ”
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 Thames Water Utilities Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate fencing preventing ingress to the railway track
Wider context from the report
“3. The fence separating the venue grounds from the railway track was not adequate to prevent ingress to the railway track. ”
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
Investigate options to improve the path and bank at location 5, including assessing lighting levels.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The river path at location 5 is at its narrowest, being close to the river, separated by a narrow steep bank, which shows some damage. There are also tree branches extending over the path close to head height. The path has no lighting but has borrowed lighting from the streetlights on the Chadwell Lane development and the High Street. At location 5 the river is 60cm – 70cm deep with around 20 cm of silt. On the opposite bank a brick pumping house is visible, with significant graffiti and direct access to the river.”

Source location
Response from Thames Water
Page 5 · response
Published 22 September 2022
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 New River Path warning signage beside the location 1 kissing gate.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Location 1 has a kissing gate entrance to the New River path, with palisade fencing on either side in good condition. There is a small notice on the gate concerning right of access and entry at one’s own risk. However, the Thames Water standard hazard warning sign stating, ‘danger deep water, no swimming, no boating, no fishing’, which should be displayed at each access point to the river is not in place in this location. Arrangements have been made for this to be installed so it will mirror the signage at location 6 (see further comments below).”

Source location
Response from Thames Water
Page 4 · response
Published 22 September 2022
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
Lighting on venue grounds is Alexandra Palace’s responsibility, while railway fencing is Network Rail’s responsibility.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I will address point number 1, as the other issues appear to relate to the responsibilities of Alexandra Palace and Network Rail respectively. Point 2 relates to lighting on the venue grounds, which is for Alexandra Palace, and fencing separating the venue from the railway track would appear to be the responsibility of Network Rail.”

Source location
Response from Thames Water
Page 2 · response
Published 22 September 2022
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

Lack of lighting beside the stream and railway fence

Lack of signs identifying the stream, its depth and warnings of danger

Lack of signs assisting with locating a way out from the venue grounds

Inadequate fencing preventing ingress to the railway track

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.1

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 1