PFD report

Mr Christian Kwame Tuvi · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Jul 2023•Inner South London

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised5

  1. Unavailability of training for cleaners to inch and operate travellator controls
  2. Failure to allocate responsibilities and powers for training and travellator-operation competence in cleaning contracts
    Part of recurring concern: Unclear accountability for health and safety controls
  3. Failure to assess cleaners against an agreed competence standard for inching
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls for high-risk machinery work
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Day-to-day London Underground operations and processes fall outside departmental powers and are accountable to the London Mayor through TfL.

    Stated by Department for TransportOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Unavailability of training for cleaners to inch and operate travellator controls

Wider context from the report

“The ORR informed the coroner that in 2020 an improvement notice was served on Cleshar Cleaners, requiring them to provide a safe system of work for communicating the movement of the conveyor which does not rely solely on verbal communication. Cleshar has appealed the Improvement Notice and the Employment Tribunal have stayed the notice until 2024. Although the improvement notice is under appeal Cleshar has made some changes to improve their safe system of work. These included a padlock for the operative to place on the nearest isolator switch before entering the gap, pressing the stop button in, KONE discussing with Cleshar where the gap is to be left prior to handing over control of the machine and the risk assessment and method statement now identify the need for a middle person to relay messages. The improvements that Cleshar made have allowed them to resume the deep clean of Waterloo moving walkway. However, the TfL familiarisation training for working in a plant room no longer provides inching as part of the course. TfL expects their contractors to provide inching training for their operatives. Without the evidence of competence to inch the machine the isolation/inching function remains with KONE as a temporary solution. It is unclear why this cannot be a permanent solution. I heard from witnesses that it would be safer for engineers, who are present during deep cleans, to operate the movements of the traveller, but I was told that it would lead to a lack of clarity as to who was in charge. This seems not to be insoluble given different contractors with different employees is a norm on building sites working safely under HSE rules across the country. More likely there are undisclosed issues perhaps related to assumption of responsibility for risk or financial considerations which explain the resistance. The inquest heard that prior to the accident, cleaners would attend a TfL training course with a signed form which TfL observed was a certificate of competence to inch and operate the controls of the traveller. But the issuing manager and cleaners thought that the TfL course provided that training. The withdrawal of that training and the inability to find another training facility, has led to the cleaners not being trained and so not permitted to operate the travellator. Cleshar Cleaners management have not in the past assessed their cleaners for competence to inch and there is no agreed standard of competence. Concerns were expressed in the inquest that most of the cleaners did not have English as their first language and that the risk assessment method statement was a huge technical document, with which the cleaners were not familiar and they all required training in the whole method of work, and not just the person in charge. MY CONCERN and reason for reporting this matter to the minister and not just the regulator and contractors, is that nearly four years have passed and there remains an impasse between the organizations as to whom should train whom, and the competence required to operate the travellator whilst it is being cleaned. It seems that TfL has the power to produce a resolution, but is leaving matters to others to resolve. It is hard not to conclude that there is corporate reluctance to assume risk for an important public service. The regulatory bodies and contractors in the supply chain have allowed this matter to remain unresolved for an unacceptable length of time and there may be a system failure in the allocation of responsibilities and powers in the process of contracting for cleaning escalators. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to allocate responsibilities and powers for training and travellator-operation competence in cleaning contracts

Wider context from the report

“The ORR informed the coroner that in 2020 an improvement notice was served on Cleshar Cleaners, requiring them to provide a safe system of work for communicating the movement of the conveyor which does not rely solely on verbal communication. Cleshar has appealed the Improvement Notice and the Employment Tribunal have stayed the notice until 2024. Although the improvement notice is under appeal Cleshar has made some changes to improve their safe system of work. These included a padlock for the operative to place on the nearest isolator switch before entering the gap, pressing the stop button in, KONE discussing with Cleshar where the gap is to be left prior to handing over control of the machine and the risk assessment and method statement now identify the need for a middle person to relay messages. The improvements that Cleshar made have allowed them to resume the deep clean of Waterloo moving walkway. However, the TfL familiarisation training for working in a plant room no longer provides inching as part of the course. TfL expects their contractors to provide inching training for their operatives. Without the evidence of competence to inch the machine the isolation/inching function remains with KONE as a temporary solution. It is unclear why this cannot be a permanent solution. I heard from witnesses that it would be safer for engineers, who are present during deep cleans, to operate the movements of the traveller, but I was told that it would lead to a lack of clarity as to who was in charge. This seems not to be insoluble given different contractors with different employees is a norm on building sites working safely under HSE rules across the country. More likely there are undisclosed issues perhaps related to assumption of responsibility for risk or financial considerations which explain the resistance. The inquest heard that prior to the accident, cleaners would attend a TfL training course with a signed form which TfL observed was a certificate of competence to inch and operate the controls of the traveller. But the issuing manager and cleaners thought that the TfL course provided that training. The withdrawal of that training and the inability to find another training facility, has led to the cleaners not being trained and so not permitted to operate the travellator. Cleshar Cleaners management have not in the past assessed their cleaners for competence to inch and there is no agreed standard of competence. Concerns were expressed in the inquest that most of the cleaners did not have English as their first language and that the risk assessment method statement was a huge technical document, with which the cleaners were not familiar and they all required training in the whole method of work, and not just the person in charge. MY CONCERN and reason for reporting this matter to the minister and not just the regulator and contractors, is that nearly four years have passed and there remains an impasse between the organizations as to whom should train whom, and the competence required to operate the travellator whilst it is being cleaned. It seems that TfL has the power to produce a resolution, but is leaving matters to others to resolve. It is hard not to conclude that there is corporate reluctance to assume risk for an important public service. The regulatory bodies and contractors in the supply chain have allowed this matter to remain unresolved for an unacceptable length of time and there may be a system failure in the allocation of responsibilities and powers in the process of contracting for cleaning escalators. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unclear accountability for health and safety controls.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to assess cleaners against an agreed competence standard for inching

Wider context from the report

“The ORR informed the coroner that in 2020 an improvement notice was served on Cleshar Cleaners, requiring them to provide a safe system of work for communicating the movement of the conveyor which does not rely solely on verbal communication. Cleshar has appealed the Improvement Notice and the Employment Tribunal have stayed the notice until 2024. Although the improvement notice is under appeal Cleshar has made some changes to improve their safe system of work. These included a padlock for the operative to place on the nearest isolator switch before entering the gap, pressing the stop button in, KONE discussing with Cleshar where the gap is to be left prior to handing over control of the machine and the risk assessment and method statement now identify the need for a middle person to relay messages. The improvements that Cleshar made have allowed them to resume the deep clean of Waterloo moving walkway. However, the TfL familiarisation training for working in a plant room no longer provides inching as part of the course. TfL expects their contractors to provide inching training for their operatives. Without the evidence of competence to inch the machine the isolation/inching function remains with KONE as a temporary solution. It is unclear why this cannot be a permanent solution. I heard from witnesses that it would be safer for engineers, who are present during deep cleans, to operate the movements of the traveller, but I was told that it would lead to a lack of clarity as to who was in charge. This seems not to be insoluble given different contractors with different employees is a norm on building sites working safely under HSE rules across the country. More likely there are undisclosed issues perhaps related to assumption of responsibility for risk or financial considerations which explain the resistance. The inquest heard that prior to the accident, cleaners would attend a TfL training course with a signed form which TfL observed was a certificate of competence to inch and operate the controls of the traveller. But the issuing manager and cleaners thought that the TfL course provided that training. The withdrawal of that training and the inability to find another training facility, has led to the cleaners not being trained and so not permitted to operate the travellator. Cleshar Cleaners management have not in the past assessed their cleaners for competence to inch and there is no agreed standard of competence. Concerns were expressed in the inquest that most of the cleaners did not have English as their first language and that the risk assessment method statement was a huge technical document, with which the cleaners were not familiar and they all required training in the whole method of work, and not just the person in charge. MY CONCERN and reason for reporting this matter to the minister and not just the regulator and contractors, is that nearly four years have passed and there remains an impasse between the organizations as to whom should train whom, and the competence required to operate the travellator whilst it is being cleaned. It seems that TfL has the power to produce a resolution, but is leaving matters to others to resolve. It is hard not to conclude that there is corporate reluctance to assume risk for an important public service. The regulatory bodies and contractors in the supply chain have allowed this matter to remain unresolved for an unacceptable length of time and there may be a system failure in the allocation of responsibilities and powers in the process of contracting for cleaning escalators. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls for high-risk machinery work.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to ensure cleaners understand the full technical method of work

Wider context from the report

“The ORR informed the coroner that in 2020 an improvement notice was served on Cleshar Cleaners, requiring them to provide a safe system of work for communicating the movement of the conveyor which does not rely solely on verbal communication. Cleshar has appealed the Improvement Notice and the Employment Tribunal have stayed the notice until 2024. Although the improvement notice is under appeal Cleshar has made some changes to improve their safe system of work. These included a padlock for the operative to place on the nearest isolator switch before entering the gap, pressing the stop button in, KONE discussing with Cleshar where the gap is to be left prior to handing over control of the machine and the risk assessment and method statement now identify the need for a middle person to relay messages. The improvements that Cleshar made have allowed them to resume the deep clean of Waterloo moving walkway. However, the TfL familiarisation training for working in a plant room no longer provides inching as part of the course. TfL expects their contractors to provide inching training for their operatives. Without the evidence of competence to inch the machine the isolation/inching function remains with KONE as a temporary solution. It is unclear why this cannot be a permanent solution. I heard from witnesses that it would be safer for engineers, who are present during deep cleans, to operate the movements of the traveller, but I was told that it would lead to a lack of clarity as to who was in charge. This seems not to be insoluble given different contractors with different employees is a norm on building sites working safely under HSE rules across the country. More likely there are undisclosed issues perhaps related to assumption of responsibility for risk or financial considerations which explain the resistance. The inquest heard that prior to the accident, cleaners would attend a TfL training course with a signed form which TfL observed was a certificate of competence to inch and operate the controls of the traveller. But the issuing manager and cleaners thought that the TfL course provided that training. The withdrawal of that training and the inability to find another training facility, has led to the cleaners not being trained and so not permitted to operate the travellator. Cleshar Cleaners management have not in the past assessed their cleaners for competence to inch and there is no agreed standard of competence. Concerns were expressed in the inquest that most of the cleaners did not have English as their first language and that the risk assessment method statement was a huge technical document, with which the cleaners were not familiar and they all required training in the whole method of work, and not just the person in charge. MY CONCERN and reason for reporting this matter to the minister and not just the regulator and contractors, is that nearly four years have passed and there remains an impasse between the organizations as to whom should train whom, and the competence required to operate the travellator whilst it is being cleaned. It seems that TfL has the power to produce a resolution, but is leaving matters to others to resolve. It is hard not to conclude that there is corporate reluctance to assume risk for an important public service. The regulatory bodies and contractors in the supply chain have allowed this matter to remain unresolved for an unacceptable length of time and there may be a system failure in the allocation of responsibilities and powers in the process of contracting for cleaning escalators. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide a movement-communication system that does not rely solely on verbal communication

Wider context from the report

“The ORR informed the coroner that in 2020 an improvement notice was served on Cleshar Cleaners, requiring them to provide a safe system of work for communicating the movement of the conveyor which does not rely solely on verbal communication. Cleshar has appealed the Improvement Notice and the Employment Tribunal have stayed the notice until 2024. Although the improvement notice is under appeal Cleshar has made some changes to improve their safe system of work. These included a padlock for the operative to place on the nearest isolator switch before entering the gap, pressing the stop button in, KONE discussing with Cleshar where the gap is to be left prior to handing over control of the machine and the risk assessment and method statement now identify the need for a middle person to relay messages. The improvements that Cleshar made have allowed them to resume the deep clean of Waterloo moving walkway. However, the TfL familiarisation training for working in a plant room no longer provides inching as part of the course. TfL expects their contractors to provide inching training for their operatives. Without the evidence of competence to inch the machine the isolation/inching function remains with KONE as a temporary solution. It is unclear why this cannot be a permanent solution. I heard from witnesses that it would be safer for engineers, who are present during deep cleans, to operate the movements of the traveller, but I was told that it would lead to a lack of clarity as to who was in charge. This seems not to be insoluble given different contractors with different employees is a norm on building sites working safely under HSE rules across the country. More likely there are undisclosed issues perhaps related to assumption of responsibility for risk or financial considerations which explain the resistance. The inquest heard that prior to the accident, cleaners would attend a TfL training course with a signed form which TfL observed was a certificate of competence to inch and operate the controls of the traveller. But the issuing manager and cleaners thought that the TfL course provided that training. The withdrawal of that training and the inability to find another training facility, has led to the cleaners not being trained and so not permitted to operate the travellator. Cleshar Cleaners management have not in the past assessed their cleaners for competence to inch and there is no agreed standard of competence. Concerns were expressed in the inquest that most of the cleaners did not have English as their first language and that the risk assessment method statement was a huge technical document, with which the cleaners were not familiar and they all required training in the whole method of work, and not just the person in charge. MY CONCERN and reason for reporting this matter to the minister and not just the regulator and contractors, is that nearly four years have passed and there remains an impasse between the organizations as to whom should train whom, and the competence required to operate the travellator whilst it is being cleaned. It seems that TfL has the power to produce a resolution, but is leaving matters to others to resolve. It is hard not to conclude that there is corporate reluctance to assume risk for an important public service. The regulatory bodies and contractors in the supply chain have allowed this matter to remain unresolved for an unacceptable length of time and there may be a system failure in the allocation of responsibilities and powers in the process of contracting for cleaning escalators. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

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

Day-to-day London Underground operations and processes fall outside departmental powers and are accountable to the London Mayor through TfL.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you will be aware, my Department has limited powers to intervene formally in transport safety matters, which are the responsibility of the Office of Rail and Road in its capacity as the independent Rail Safety Regulator. Furthermore, my Department does not have powers to intervene in London Underground Limited’s day-to-day operations or processes, for which it is separately accountable to the London Mayor as a subsidiary of TfL.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 18 July 2023

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

Formal transport safety intervention is the Office of Rail and Road’s responsibility as the independent rail safety regulator.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you will be aware, my Department has limited powers to intervene formally in transport safety matters, which are the responsibility of the Office of Rail and Road in its capacity as the independent Rail Safety Regulator. Furthermore, my Department does not have powers to intervene in London Underground Limited’s day-to-day operations or processes, for which it is separately accountable to the London Mayor as a subsidiary of TfL.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 18 July 2023

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

Current arrangements, with competent KONE engineers undertaking all inching activities, are considered a clear and safe response to the training concern.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In light of the report, we have discussed the training of inching activities with KONE. KONE has informed us that, having considered the relevant work arrangements, they have decided, in consultation with Cleshar Contract Services Ltd (Cleshar), to continue permanently with the current temporary working arrangements i.e. KONE engineers will undertake all inching activities on LU’s moving walks and escalators, which they are contracted to maintain and clean, so Cleshar operatives can clean the machines. KONE engineers are assessed and deemed competent against the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) Level 3 for escalator maintenance which includes inching. KONE consider that this is a clear and safe way forward to ensure that they meet their responsibility for the cleaning of these assets.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 1 · response
Published 18 July 2023

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

KONE is responsible for training its staff and suppliers who undertake inching activities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You will remember that KONE plc (KONE) agreed at the inquest that training of their staff, or any suppliers who work for them, was their responsibility.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 1 · response
Published 18 July 2023

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Update KONE and Cleshar Safe Systems of Work to clarify machine control during intrusive cleaning.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 July 2023.

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

Update KONE and Cleshar Safe Systems of Work to clarify machine control during intrusive cleaning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are currently working with KONE to ensure that their Safe Systems of Work, as well as Cleshar’s, have been updated to reflect these new arrangements. We want to ensure that, given the two parties are involved in an intrusive clean, the Safe Systems of Work are clear on who is always in control of the machine. We plan to complete this review with KONE by 29 September 2023.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 18 July 2023

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026