PFD report

Isaac John Walter Brocklehurst · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Oct 2016•West Yorkshire (Western)

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Failure to assess the safety of pedestrian gaps in the perimeter wall for children
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to assess underlying process risks independently of existing controls
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.2

  1. Action

    Continue assessing accommodation type and proximity to risk when reviewing and prioritising neighbourhood works.

    Stated by Incommunities LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 March 2017.
  2. Action

    Fit gates within the low perimeter wall at Valley Road.

    Stated by Incommunities LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2017.

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 the safety of pedestrian gaps in the perimeter wall for children

Wider context from the report

“The Inquest heard evidence to suggest that children play within the communal grassed area at the rear of ████████ The Integrity of the low perimeter wall or it's maintenance was not brought into question. • To review the existing pedestrian gaps in the perimeter wall in order to assess the safety aspects for children. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to assess underlying process risks independently of existing controls.

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

Continue assessing accommodation type and proximity to risk when reviewing and prioritising neighbourhood works.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of an investment in our neighbourhoods, Incommunities commenced a Decent Neighbourhoods programme in 2015 which focuses on environmental improvements including fencing to communal areas. When reviewing works to be undertaken, and their prioritisation, we will continue to assess the type of accommodation i.e. family accommodation and proximity to risk. However, some of our communal areas are ‘open plan’ and have been so since their build date and may remain so.”

Source location

2016-0486-Response-by-Incommunities
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2017

Open published response

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

Fit gates within the low perimeter wall at Valley Road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With specific relation to Valley Road and the perimeter wall, gates have been fitted within the low perimeter wall.”

Source location

2016-0486-Response-by-Incommunities
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2017

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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Responsibility for public pathways adjoining its homes rests with the local authority, not the housing association.

    Stated by Incommunities LimitedOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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

Responsibility for public pathways adjoining its homes rests with the local authority, not the housing association.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Incommunities is a social landlord with homes across the Bradford District and some of these are adjacent to arterial roads, but as a Housing Association we have no responsibility for public pathways belonging to the local authority. In addition there are over 500 parcels of land that are adjacent to Incommunities homes.”

Source location

2016-0486-Response-by-Incommunities
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2017

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026