Recipient

The Dalmeny Hotel

Pin Request correction

First report 22 Mar 2016•Latest report 22 Mar 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Sub-organisation. 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 The Dalmeny Hotel linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Blackpool and the Fylde

    AI-generated summary

    Jane Bell · 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

    Jane Bell drowned in a hotel swimming pool after going underwater in the deep end and later died in hospital on 14 August 2014. The principal concern was that the hotel’s arrangements for pool supervision, including CCTV monitoring and infrequent poolside patrols, remained insufficient to prevent future deaths, particularly where staff could be distracted and a child could remain underwater for a fatal period.

    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 The Dalmeny Hotel; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain constant pool monitoring while reception staff perform other tasks

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned that the arrangements which the inquest was told are currently in place at the hotel are such that there remains a risk of future deaths. Although the inquest heard expert evidence to the effect that the requirement that there be constant poolside supervision can be met by a combination of other factors notably poolside patrols and CCTV monitoring and that the hotel aims to provide this, I am concerned that the way in which this is to be delivered is insufficient and the duty to write this report is satisfied. There are now two members of staff employed in the reception area at all times when the pool is open to swimmers. However, although the proposed pool side patrols are to be undertaken at certain parts of the day at 15 minute intervals, at other times when the number of swimmers in the pool is lower these patrols may take place less often and up to a minimum of once per hour. The inquest heard that on the day that Jane Bell died a Leisure Assistant was unable to constantly monitor the pool by way of the CCTV screen / monitor in reception because he was at that time trying to also perform other tasks such as booking guests into the gym, distributing towels etc. The hotel – as confirmed by the Managing Director at the inquest – takes the view that because two staff will now be based in reception that this will ensure those tasks can be performed whilst the other member of staff monitors the pool thereby ensuring constant supervision. I do not find this argument convincing to the extent I am satisfied the duty upon me to write this report is not met. The expert witness told the inquest that he was “not a big fan” of CCTV, and it appears to me that even with two members of staff in the reception area, and given the other tasks such staff have to deal with, it is unlikely that between them the two members of staff will always have the pool in their sight at all times. This is concerning when considered in combination with the proposed pool side patrols. If it was envisaged that such patrols be undertaken at 5 minute intervals throughout times when children may be swimming in the pool, a few moments during which the reception staff may be distracted and dealing with other tasks and not observing the CCTV footage may be less of a concern because a member of staff undertaking patrols at 5 minute intervals would have the chance to observe families, assess if they are complying with the rules set out on signs within the pool area, and recognise whether swimmers who need floatation devices such as arm bands are indeed using them. However, if such patrols take place less frequently the chances of the staff performing those patrols identifying issues that may place a child swimmer at risk are diluted. This appears to be a concern even if the hotel does facilitate patrols at 15 minute intervals as they propose at all times during which the pool is occupied by families. At present, a family may enter the pool and be swimming in the pool for some time, and may be up to an hour, before being observed by a member of staff patrolling the pool area should that family chose to use the pool at a time of low occupancy. This may not be a problem if they are a family who are not safety conscious, are unaware that there is no constant pool side presence, have over-estimated their child’s swimming ability and paid insufficient attention to the pool signage as a result, are not complying with the hotel regulations for whatever reason. A problem then arises is if that family is allowing a child to swim alone or in the deeper half of the pool or without floatation aids when they need one. Jane Bell was under the water for slightly less than two minutes and this proved fatal. I am concerned that reception desk staff may be distracted for a similar time leaving them unable – in spite of the encouraging work that has been undertaken since this fatality to train leisure and entertainment staff in first aid and pool side rescue which the expert witness felt ought to enable staff to effect a pool rescue – to rescue a child and prevent a similar fatality. The time needed to assist a child under the water is limited and poolside safety equipment at the hotel is limited to devices that may be used to assist someone struggling on the surface but not necessarily a child under the water. The impression given during evidence at the inquest was that the hotel management felt that there is a marked difference between time of high pool occupancy and other times when the use of the pool is much less. The concern about future deaths does not arise in respect of times when the pool is empty or when only adults are using it. The concern arises when perhaps only one or two families are using the pool. The evidence provided at the inquest suggested that at such times, pool side patrols would take place much less often than at fifteen minute intervals and I am concerned that more infrequent patrols – when families are using the pool – would not satisfy the requirement for constant supervision. Indeed as the expert witness stated at the inquest, he was of the opinion that such patrols ought to be conducted at five minute intervals. At the conclusion of the inquest, I indicated to the Properly Interested Persons that I proposed to write to the Trust by way of a report in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. ”
    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 The Dalmeny Hotel; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain immediate child-rescue availability during pool monitoring

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned that the arrangements which the inquest was told are currently in place at the hotel are such that there remains a risk of future deaths. Although the inquest heard expert evidence to the effect that the requirement that there be constant poolside supervision can be met by a combination of other factors notably poolside patrols and CCTV monitoring and that the hotel aims to provide this, I am concerned that the way in which this is to be delivered is insufficient and the duty to write this report is satisfied. There are now two members of staff employed in the reception area at all times when the pool is open to swimmers. However, although the proposed pool side patrols are to be undertaken at certain parts of the day at 15 minute intervals, at other times when the number of swimmers in the pool is lower these patrols may take place less often and up to a minimum of once per hour. The inquest heard that on the day that Jane Bell died a Leisure Assistant was unable to constantly monitor the pool by way of the CCTV screen / monitor in reception because he was at that time trying to also perform other tasks such as booking guests into the gym, distributing towels etc. The hotel – as confirmed by the Managing Director at the inquest – takes the view that because two staff will now be based in reception that this will ensure those tasks can be performed whilst the other member of staff monitors the pool thereby ensuring constant supervision. I do not find this argument convincing to the extent I am satisfied the duty upon me to write this report is not met. The expert witness told the inquest that he was “not a big fan” of CCTV, and it appears to me that even with two members of staff in the reception area, and given the other tasks such staff have to deal with, it is unlikely that between them the two members of staff will always have the pool in their sight at all times. This is concerning when considered in combination with the proposed pool side patrols. If it was envisaged that such patrols be undertaken at 5 minute intervals throughout times when children may be swimming in the pool, a few moments during which the reception staff may be distracted and dealing with other tasks and not observing the CCTV footage may be less of a concern because a member of staff undertaking patrols at 5 minute intervals would have the chance to observe families, assess if they are complying with the rules set out on signs within the pool area, and recognise whether swimmers who need floatation devices such as arm bands are indeed using them. However, if such patrols take place less frequently the chances of the staff performing those patrols identifying issues that may place a child swimmer at risk are diluted. This appears to be a concern even if the hotel does facilitate patrols at 15 minute intervals as they propose at all times during which the pool is occupied by families. At present, a family may enter the pool and be swimming in the pool for some time, and may be up to an hour, before being observed by a member of staff patrolling the pool area should that family chose to use the pool at a time of low occupancy. This may not be a problem if they are a family who are not safety conscious, are unaware that there is no constant pool side presence, have over-estimated their child’s swimming ability and paid insufficient attention to the pool signage as a result, are not complying with the hotel regulations for whatever reason. A problem then arises is if that family is allowing a child to swim alone or in the deeper half of the pool or without floatation aids when they need one. Jane Bell was under the water for slightly less than two minutes and this proved fatal. I am concerned that reception desk staff may be distracted for a similar time leaving them unable – in spite of the encouraging work that has been undertaken since this fatality to train leisure and entertainment staff in first aid and pool side rescue which the expert witness felt ought to enable staff to effect a pool rescue – to rescue a child and prevent a similar fatality. The time needed to assist a child under the water is limited and poolside safety equipment at the hotel is limited to devices that may be used to assist someone struggling on the surface but not necessarily a child under the water. The impression given during evidence at the inquest was that the hotel management felt that there is a marked difference between time of high pool occupancy and other times when the use of the pool is much less. The concern about future deaths does not arise in respect of times when the pool is empty or when only adults are using it. The concern arises when perhaps only one or two families are using the pool. The evidence provided at the inquest suggested that at such times, pool side patrols would take place much less often than at fifteen minute intervals and I am concerned that more infrequent patrols – when families are using the pool – would not satisfy the requirement for constant supervision. Indeed as the expert witness stated at the inquest, he was of the opinion that such patrols ought to be conducted at five minute intervals. At the conclusion of the inquest, I indicated to the Properly Interested Persons that I proposed to write to the Trust by way of a report in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. ”
    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 The Dalmeny Hotel; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient frequency of poolside patrols when families use the pool

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned that the arrangements which the inquest was told are currently in place at the hotel are such that there remains a risk of future deaths. Although the inquest heard expert evidence to the effect that the requirement that there be constant poolside supervision can be met by a combination of other factors notably poolside patrols and CCTV monitoring and that the hotel aims to provide this, I am concerned that the way in which this is to be delivered is insufficient and the duty to write this report is satisfied. There are now two members of staff employed in the reception area at all times when the pool is open to swimmers. However, although the proposed pool side patrols are to be undertaken at certain parts of the day at 15 minute intervals, at other times when the number of swimmers in the pool is lower these patrols may take place less often and up to a minimum of once per hour. The inquest heard that on the day that Jane Bell died a Leisure Assistant was unable to constantly monitor the pool by way of the CCTV screen / monitor in reception because he was at that time trying to also perform other tasks such as booking guests into the gym, distributing towels etc. The hotel – as confirmed by the Managing Director at the inquest – takes the view that because two staff will now be based in reception that this will ensure those tasks can be performed whilst the other member of staff monitors the pool thereby ensuring constant supervision. I do not find this argument convincing to the extent I am satisfied the duty upon me to write this report is not met. The expert witness told the inquest that he was “not a big fan” of CCTV, and it appears to me that even with two members of staff in the reception area, and given the other tasks such staff have to deal with, it is unlikely that between them the two members of staff will always have the pool in their sight at all times. This is concerning when considered in combination with the proposed pool side patrols. If it was envisaged that such patrols be undertaken at 5 minute intervals throughout times when children may be swimming in the pool, a few moments during which the reception staff may be distracted and dealing with other tasks and not observing the CCTV footage may be less of a concern because a member of staff undertaking patrols at 5 minute intervals would have the chance to observe families, assess if they are complying with the rules set out on signs within the pool area, and recognise whether swimmers who need floatation devices such as arm bands are indeed using them. However, if such patrols take place less frequently the chances of the staff performing those patrols identifying issues that may place a child swimmer at risk are diluted. This appears to be a concern even if the hotel does facilitate patrols at 15 minute intervals as they propose at all times during which the pool is occupied by families. At present, a family may enter the pool and be swimming in the pool for some time, and may be up to an hour, before being observed by a member of staff patrolling the pool area should that family chose to use the pool at a time of low occupancy. This may not be a problem if they are a family who are not safety conscious, are unaware that there is no constant pool side presence, have over-estimated their child’s swimming ability and paid insufficient attention to the pool signage as a result, are not complying with the hotel regulations for whatever reason. A problem then arises is if that family is allowing a child to swim alone or in the deeper half of the pool or without floatation aids when they need one. Jane Bell was under the water for slightly less than two minutes and this proved fatal. I am concerned that reception desk staff may be distracted for a similar time leaving them unable – in spite of the encouraging work that has been undertaken since this fatality to train leisure and entertainment staff in first aid and pool side rescue which the expert witness felt ought to enable staff to effect a pool rescue – to rescue a child and prevent a similar fatality. The time needed to assist a child under the water is limited and poolside safety equipment at the hotel is limited to devices that may be used to assist someone struggling on the surface but not necessarily a child under the water. The impression given during evidence at the inquest was that the hotel management felt that there is a marked difference between time of high pool occupancy and other times when the use of the pool is much less. The concern about future deaths does not arise in respect of times when the pool is empty or when only adults are using it. The concern arises when perhaps only one or two families are using the pool. The evidence provided at the inquest suggested that at such times, pool side patrols would take place much less often than at fifteen minute intervals and I am concerned that more infrequent patrols – when families are using the pool – would not satisfy the requirement for constant supervision. Indeed as the expert witness stated at the inquest, he was of the opinion that such patrols ought to be conducted at five minute intervals. At the conclusion of the inquest, I indicated to the Properly Interested Persons that I proposed to write to the Trust by way of a report in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. ”
    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 The Dalmeny Hotel; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient poolside equipment for rescuing a submerged child

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned that the arrangements which the inquest was told are currently in place at the hotel are such that there remains a risk of future deaths. Although the inquest heard expert evidence to the effect that the requirement that there be constant poolside supervision can be met by a combination of other factors notably poolside patrols and CCTV monitoring and that the hotel aims to provide this, I am concerned that the way in which this is to be delivered is insufficient and the duty to write this report is satisfied. There are now two members of staff employed in the reception area at all times when the pool is open to swimmers. However, although the proposed pool side patrols are to be undertaken at certain parts of the day at 15 minute intervals, at other times when the number of swimmers in the pool is lower these patrols may take place less often and up to a minimum of once per hour. The inquest heard that on the day that Jane Bell died a Leisure Assistant was unable to constantly monitor the pool by way of the CCTV screen / monitor in reception because he was at that time trying to also perform other tasks such as booking guests into the gym, distributing towels etc. The hotel – as confirmed by the Managing Director at the inquest – takes the view that because two staff will now be based in reception that this will ensure those tasks can be performed whilst the other member of staff monitors the pool thereby ensuring constant supervision. I do not find this argument convincing to the extent I am satisfied the duty upon me to write this report is not met. The expert witness told the inquest that he was “not a big fan” of CCTV, and it appears to me that even with two members of staff in the reception area, and given the other tasks such staff have to deal with, it is unlikely that between them the two members of staff will always have the pool in their sight at all times. This is concerning when considered in combination with the proposed pool side patrols. If it was envisaged that such patrols be undertaken at 5 minute intervals throughout times when children may be swimming in the pool, a few moments during which the reception staff may be distracted and dealing with other tasks and not observing the CCTV footage may be less of a concern because a member of staff undertaking patrols at 5 minute intervals would have the chance to observe families, assess if they are complying with the rules set out on signs within the pool area, and recognise whether swimmers who need floatation devices such as arm bands are indeed using them. However, if such patrols take place less frequently the chances of the staff performing those patrols identifying issues that may place a child swimmer at risk are diluted. This appears to be a concern even if the hotel does facilitate patrols at 15 minute intervals as they propose at all times during which the pool is occupied by families. At present, a family may enter the pool and be swimming in the pool for some time, and may be up to an hour, before being observed by a member of staff patrolling the pool area should that family chose to use the pool at a time of low occupancy. This may not be a problem if they are a family who are not safety conscious, are unaware that there is no constant pool side presence, have over-estimated their child’s swimming ability and paid insufficient attention to the pool signage as a result, are not complying with the hotel regulations for whatever reason. A problem then arises is if that family is allowing a child to swim alone or in the deeper half of the pool or without floatation aids when they need one. Jane Bell was under the water for slightly less than two minutes and this proved fatal. I am concerned that reception desk staff may be distracted for a similar time leaving them unable – in spite of the encouraging work that has been undertaken since this fatality to train leisure and entertainment staff in first aid and pool side rescue which the expert witness felt ought to enable staff to effect a pool rescue – to rescue a child and prevent a similar fatality. The time needed to assist a child under the water is limited and poolside safety equipment at the hotel is limited to devices that may be used to assist someone struggling on the surface but not necessarily a child under the water. The impression given during evidence at the inquest was that the hotel management felt that there is a marked difference between time of high pool occupancy and other times when the use of the pool is much less. The concern about future deaths does not arise in respect of times when the pool is empty or when only adults are using it. The concern arises when perhaps only one or two families are using the pool. The evidence provided at the inquest suggested that at such times, pool side patrols would take place much less often than at fifteen minute intervals and I am concerned that more infrequent patrols – when families are using the pool – would not satisfy the requirement for constant supervision. Indeed as the expert witness stated at the inquest, he was of the opinion that such patrols ought to be conducted at five minute intervals. At the conclusion of the inquest, I indicated to the Properly Interested Persons that I proposed to write to the Trust by way of a report in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. ”
    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