Janet Shirley Jasper · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 2 January 2018 an investigation commenced into the death of Janet Shirley Jasper aged 79 years. The investigation concluded with an inquest heard before a jury between 13 and 17 January 2020. The conclusion of the inquest was accidental death

Mrs Janet Shirley Jasper was born on 10.10.38. She resided in a semi-detached property at ████████ in Birstall, Leicestershire with her husband ████████, and their son ████████

The adjoining house, number ████████ in Birstall, Leicestershire, was vacant, having been owned by the father of the witness ████████ who died in August 2017

On 10 December 2017 ████████ reported the smell of gas in his hallway and a first call operative from Cadent Gas Ltd attended the property. The first call operative found no evidence of a gas leak in ████████ Birstall, Leicestershire

On 11 December 2017 ████████ arrived at number ████████ at approximately 7.20am. He noticed a smell whilst on the driveway which became stronger as he entered the conservatory, and then the kitchen, of the property. He described lifting the glass lid of the hob and then finding himself lying on the kitchen floor covered in rubble

The Court heard from ████████ that at approximately 7.30am on 11 December 2017 he got out of bed leaving his Mrs Janet Jasper in bed. He was standing the bottom of the bed when there was an “enormous flash and a bang”. Plaster board fell on top of him pinning him to the floor

Mrs Janet Jasper was taken to Walsgrave Hospital where she died on 12 December 2017

The Court heard from ████████ Consultant in Intensive Care Medicine that the medical cause of death was:

1a. Multi organ failure
1b. Thoracic trauma
1c. Explosion

The Court heard from ████████ gas investigation officer for the Health and Safety Executive, that the gas leak originated in the hallway of ████████ Birstall, Leicestershire. A full separation of the gas pipe in the concrete floor of the hallway had occurred due to ground movement caused by subsidence. His evidence was that poor construction of the floor was a major contributing factor in the subsidence and the failure of the pipe

████████ was unable to assist the court with exactly when the gas pipe failed. He estimated a time period of between five and ten hours but was clear that the time period could have been shorter or longer than that estimate. He was unable to say whether the gas leak had occurred before, or during, the first call operative’s visit to number ████████, Birstall, Leicestershire

His evidence was that the spark which ignited the gas and caused the explosion was likely to have omitted from the light switch or the spark ignition on the hob of the cooker in the kitchen

The Court heard that there are two hundred and fifty four properties within the immediate area of the incident which are at risk of floors failing in a similar manner

The Court also heard there is inconsistency in the policies of the four gas distribution networks with some requiring first call operatives to inspect adjoining properties for gas and some permitting the operative to make that decision based upon the circumstance and findings on scene

In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths may occur unless the risk to the other properties within the immediate area of the incident is properly and quickly addressed, and a consistent approach to inspecting adjoining properties is developed