PFD report

Lisa Jane CLAYTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Nov 2013•Manchester North

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
5

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 5 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 raised6

  1. Failure of the wall rails to prevent climbing onto the car park wall
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
  2. Insufficient CCTV monitoring of access to and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient CCTV monitoring of access to high-risk locations
  3. Failure to take direct action in response to identified safety concerns
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 the wall rails to prevent climbing onto the car park wall

Wider context from the report

“1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

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

Insufficient CCTV monitoring of access to and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor

Wider context from the report

“1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient CCTV monitoring of access to high-risk locations.

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 take direct action in response to identified safety concerns

Wider context from the report

“1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”

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

Insufficient security control-room staffing for monitoring and coordination duties

Wider context from the report

“1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”

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 prevent the low metal barrier from providing a foothold for climbing onto the car park wall

Wider context from the report

“1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

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

Risk of acts and attempts to take one's own life at the car park location

Wider context from the report

“1) The wall surrounding the 7ᵗʰ floor of the car park has a metal barrier/bumper situated low down on the wall, designed to prevent damage to the wall by parking cars. It equally provides a sturdy foothold allowing adult pedestrians, children etc to climb onto the wall itself. 2) Whilst the wall has two distinct horizontal metal rails fixed to the top of it, the gaps between the two rails are relatively large. The rails themselves potentially provide an effective anchor-point for an individual to climb onto the wall, particularly when combined with the barrier/bumper mentioned at point 1. 3) The wall/rails are an insufficient deterrent/preventative measure. 4) The level and extent of CCTV monitoring – particularly of the 7ᵗʰ floor, which is usually corded off to prevent public usage (save for at the busiest times) – is insufficient. The building has 24 hour security officers in attendance and it is accepted that at night, the building is physically secured. However, day time monitoring is limited (see point 5 below) and in all probability not as effective as it might be in terms of keeping a check on who is accessing a (top) floor that has been corded off to the general public. There has been no allocated/fixed camera covering or monitoring access and usage of the 7ᵗʰ floor. 5) The staffing levels within the security control room are insufficient. There is one guard, watching 6 screens, covering 40 cameras. In addition, the same guard is required to complete paperwork and liaise, assist and co-ordinate security colleagues ‘on the ground’. Even at the busiest times, only one guard is on duty in the control room. 6) There have been previous acts and attempts by others to take their own life, at the same location. Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the Manchester North area has previously put his concerns in writing to the Manager of The Spindles. In addition, the Senior Investigating Officer (Greater Manchester Police) has also expressed his concerns directly to the same. Despite this, little direct action has (or appears to have) been taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report
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
0/5

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.