PFD report

Mr Ashley Aaron Matthews · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Jul 2015•Black Country

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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.

Concerns raised3

  1. Absence of warning signs about high voltage cabling dangers
  2. Failure to maintain secure perimeter fencing and prevent unauthorised site access
  3. Failure of security patrols to remain alert and effective
    Part of recurring concern: Ineffective site security patrols
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Action

    Discuss with Network Rail whether employing a security officer would be cost-effective.

    Stated by British Transport PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 July 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The security officer reportedly seen at the site was employed by a nearby haulage or construction site, not Network Rail.

    Stated by British Transport PoliceDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Absence of warning signs about high voltage cabling dangers

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the course of the inquest, evidence suggested that access to the site was gained by insecure fencing. (2) After the death of Ashley Matthews, the family were able to gain access to the site unchallenged by security. (3) The family witnessed the security guard asleep in his car. (4) Others had gained access and placed flowers on Bridge 26. (5) The family witnessed someone on the site walking with their dog and placing flowers on bridge 26. (6) Evidence suggested that some parts of the perimeter fencing were secured with cable ties. (7) Evidence suggested there were no warning signs on Bridge 26 warning of the dangers posed by high voltage cabling. (8) In light of the inquest findings, you may wish to consider the physical security of the site including fencing as well as the security patrols in place. ”

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 maintain secure perimeter fencing and prevent unauthorised site access

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the course of the inquest, evidence suggested that access to the site was gained by insecure fencing. (2) After the death of Ashley Matthews, the family were able to gain access to the site unchallenged by security. (3) The family witnessed the security guard asleep in his car. (4) Others had gained access and placed flowers on Bridge 26. (5) The family witnessed someone on the site walking with their dog and placing flowers on bridge 26. (6) Evidence suggested that some parts of the perimeter fencing were secured with cable ties. (7) Evidence suggested there were no warning signs on Bridge 26 warning of the dangers posed by high voltage cabling. (8) In light of the inquest findings, you may wish to consider the physical security of the site including fencing as well as the security patrols in place. ”

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 of security patrols to remain alert and effective

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the course of the inquest, evidence suggested that access to the site was gained by insecure fencing. (2) After the death of Ashley Matthews, the family were able to gain access to the site unchallenged by security. (3) The family witnessed the security guard asleep in his car. (4) Others had gained access and placed flowers on Bridge 26. (5) The family witnessed someone on the site walking with their dog and placing flowers on bridge 26. (6) Evidence suggested that some parts of the perimeter fencing were secured with cable ties. (7) Evidence suggested there were no warning signs on Bridge 26 warning of the dangers posed by high voltage cabling. (8) In light of the inquest findings, you may wish to consider the physical security of the site including fencing as well as the security patrols in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective site security patrols.

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

Discuss with Network Rail whether employing a security officer would be cost-effective.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Point 8. Network rail have never employed a security officer at the depot. It is currently used as a marshalling yard for trucks carrying low value railway ballast. I have discussed point 8 with ████████ who will be speaking with Network Rail to see if a security officer would be cost effective. He has mentioned that the site where this fatality took place is not actually within the area of the marshalling yard but is on the access line that runs towards it.”

Source location

2015-0297-Response-by-BTP
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2015

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

The security officer reportedly seen at the site was employed by a nearby haulage or construction site, not Network Rail.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The construction site for the adjacent distribution depot was well underway, it has been established that the security officer mentioned by the family was for this site and not associated in any way with Network Rail. No cable ties were found on Network Rail fencing, visit, however there are some cable ties securing temporary fencing that sounds the construction site.”

Source location

2015-0297-Response-by-BTP
Page 1 · response
Published 23 July 2015

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

The family did not access the rail yard, so the reported security failure there did not relate to their access route.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Finally, the liaison officer for this case has spoken with the family about the points that they raised. He has supplied a statement of their conversation and in this he confirms that the family did not access the rail yard at any time. They have also clarified that the security guard found asleep was from a nearby haulage yard and was nothing to do with Network Rail.”

Source location

2015-0297-Response-by-BTP
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2015

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026