PFD report

Vanessa FORD · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Mar 2024•Inner North 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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
6

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 raised4

  1. Failure of wall mitigation and safety measures to impede railway access
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areasPart of recurring concern: Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks
  2. Frequent public access to railway tracks in the Hackney Central/Dalston Kingsland vicinity
    Part of recurring concern: Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks
  3. Siting of an electrical box facilitating access to the railway wall
    Part of recurring concern: Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks
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.6

  1. Action

    Support the Local Authority’s exploration of improvements to street-furniture-related risks at Dalston Lane Road Bridge and Martel Place.

    Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 March 2024.
  2. Action

    Work with the Local Authority to explore additional wall measures addressing the incident’s specific access risks.

    Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 March 2024.
  3. Action

    Modify the Martel Place access gate to match adjacent fencing and remove the fence gap and climbing foothold.

    Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 March 2024.

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

  1. Position

    The Local Authority manages the street furniture and is responsible for decisions concerning its relocation, outside Network Rail’s control.

    Stated by Network RailRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 wall mitigation and safety measures to impede railway access

Wider context from the report

“(2) Evidence provided from CCTV footage and photographic evidence taken by the British Transport Police demonstrated that the particular piece of wall, which was used to access the railway network on 23 September 2023, was relatively low, despite an approximate drop onto the tracks below being 20 feet. The British Transport Police Post Incident Site Report sets out that the “Road over rail bridge has metal covers and hostile toppings on walls directly over the railway”; ████████ ████████ This raises the concern that the mitigation/safety measures in place on the wall may not have been as effective as one might expect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas; Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks.

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

Frequent public access to railway tracks in the Hackney Central/Dalston Kingsland vicinity

Wider context from the report

“(1) I was provided with evidence that there have been three (non-fatal) incidents in the vicinity of the Hackney Central/Dalston Kingsland areas of the rail network in the 12 months prior to this incident on 23 September 2023 (British Transport Police Post Incident Site Report DOCU Reference: DOCU 2023 1576 refers). ████████ ████████ ████████ The concern here is that there is evidence to suggest that access to the railway tracks by members of the public may be a frequent issue in this vicinity. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks.

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

Siting of an electrical box facilitating access to the railway wall

Wider context from the report

“(3) The CCTV footage and photographic evidence presented to me, demonstrated that Ms Ford’s access to the wall, and thereby the railway network below, ████████ ████████ ████████. In their oral evidence during the inquest, the Officer from the British Transport Police confirmed their view, which I accepted, that this electrical box makes access to the wall much easier than it should be. They also confirmed that this issue is unlikely to be confined solely to the ████████ and that such items of street furniture may pose similar risks across the railway network. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks.

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

Siting of street furniture facilitating access to the railway network

Wider context from the report

“(4) In addition to the ████████ mentioned at (3) above, the evidence revealed numerous items of street furniture on the ████████ ████████, all of which could be used to facilitate easier access to the wall and the railway network. The concern here is that the siting of items of street furniture generally on this bridge poses risks to all manner of members of the public, from those contemplating suicide, to young children, and may undermine safety efforts to impede easy access to the railway network. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks.

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

Support the Local Authority’s exploration of improvements to street-furniture-related risks at Dalston Lane Road Bridge and Martel Place.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Street furniture such as the recycling bins or electrical boxes referred to in your report are managed by the Local Authority. In relation to specific issues on Dalston Lane Road Bridge and Martel Place, Network Rail is liaising with the Local Authority and understand that its Streetscene department is looking to re-locate some of the recycling bins. Though this is outside of Network Rail control we will continue to support the exploration of any improvements that can be made at this location, alongside the physical mitigations being explored as detailed above. We consider that the mitigation works referred to above to add additional measures to the wall will also address the concerns raised in your report regarding the electrical box.”

Source location

Response from Network Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 14 March 2024

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

Work with the Local Authority to explore additional wall measures addressing the incident’s specific access risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the boundary is assessed as compliant to Network Rail standards, we are working with the Local Authority to explore if further measures can be implemented to address the specific concerns identified by this incident. Works have already been scheduled to be undertaken during early May 2024 to the access gate at Martel Place so that it matches the height of the adjacent palisade fencing and the gap underneath the fence and the climbing foothold will be removed. We are working with the Local Authority to consider options to add additional measures to the wall which may include the installation of Vanguard anti-climb rollers, planting Hawthorne or similar and installation of signage to warn people of the risks of the drop to the railway at the other side of the wall. It is anticipated that the selected option will be installed by early May 2024.”

Source location

Response from Network Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 14 March 2024

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

Modify the Martel Place access gate to match adjacent fencing and remove the fence gap and climbing foothold.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the boundary is assessed as compliant to Network Rail standards, we are working with the Local Authority to explore if further measures can be implemented to address the specific concerns identified by this incident. Works have already been scheduled to be undertaken during early May 2024 to the access gate at Martel Place so that it matches the height of the adjacent palisade fencing and the gap underneath the fence and the climbing foothold will be removed. We are working with the Local Authority to consider options to add additional measures to the wall which may include the installation of Vanguard anti-climb rollers, planting Hawthorne or similar and installation of signage to warn people of the risks of the drop to the railway at the other side of the wall. It is anticipated that the selected option will be installed by early May 2024.”

Source location

Response from Network Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 14 March 2024

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

Review the Martel Place wall following the report as part of continuous boundary asset management.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I note the evidence referred to in your report regarding the nature of the wall at this location, specifically the wall along Martel Place referred to in the Post Incident Site Report. The wall has been reviewed again following receipt of your report as part of Network Rail’s continuous boundary asset management approach.”

Source location

Response from Network Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 14 March 2024

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

Continue discussions between highways and planning teams to develop a planning-process mechanism for identifying and flagging electrical apparatus and street furniture near railway bridges.

Verbatim wording from the response

“9. Discussions have taken place, and will continue, between the highways team and the local planning authority to see whether an effective mechanism could be put in place through the planning process to identify and flag up electrical apparatus and street furniture at locations such as this one.”

Source location

Response from Hackney Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 March 2024

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

Remove recycling bins near Martel Place that could facilitate access to the railway network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“10. In respect of the various recycling bins nearby on Martel Place, the Council has taken steps to remove those bins and this action was completed on 8 May 2024.”

Source location

Response from Hackney Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 March 2024

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 Local Authority manages the street furniture and is responsible for decisions concerning its relocation, outside Network Rail’s control.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Street furniture such as the recycling bins or electrical boxes referred to in your report are managed by the Local Authority. In relation to specific issues on Dalston Lane Road Bridge and Martel Place, Network Rail is liaising with the Local Authority and understand that its Streetscene department is looking to re-locate some of the recycling bins. Though this is outside of Network Rail control we will continue to support the exploration of any improvements that can be made at this location, alongside the physical mitigations being explored as detailed above. We consider that the mitigation works referred to above to add additional measures to the wall will also address the concerns raised in your report regarding the electrical box.”

Source location

Response from Network Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 14 March 2024

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

London Overground, as Station Facility Owner, is responsible for managing the stations and relevant access mitigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that the three incidents referred to each occurred at the Hackney Central and Dalston Kingsland railway stations. These are publicly accessible locations and in each instance access was taken from the public station areas directly onto the track. Management of the stations and relevant access mitigations is the responsibility of London Overground as Station Facility Owner. The three incidents referred to therefore do not suggest that access to the railway tracks by members of the public may be a frequent issue in this vicinity. We have no other records of unauthorised access at this location.”

Source location

Response from Network Rail
Page 1 · response
Published 14 March 2024

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 three prior incidents do not indicate that public access to railway tracks is frequent in the Hackney Central and Dalston Kingsland vicinity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that the three incidents referred to each occurred at the Hackney Central and Dalston Kingsland railway stations. These are publicly accessible locations and in each instance access was taken from the public station areas directly onto the track. Management of the stations and relevant access mitigations is the responsibility of London Overground as Station Facility Owner. The three incidents referred to therefore do not suggest that access to the railway tracks by members of the public may be a frequent issue in this vicinity. We have no other records of unauthorised access at this location.”

Source location

Response from Network Rail
Page 1 · response
Published 14 March 2024

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

Network Rail is responsible for further measures addressing concerns about the Martel Place access gate and railway wall.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11. The Council has also been in contact with Network Rail to coordinate actions and ensure clear ownership of responsibilities. The Council has received confirmation from Network Rail that further measures to address specific concerns around the access gate at Martel Place and the wall more generally are underway.”

Source location

Response from Hackney Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 March 2024

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