PFD report

Kyle David Michael Hull · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Oct 2015•County Durham and Darlington

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

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 raised2

  1. Limited CCTV coverage and access via a Council system
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systems
  2. Failure of CCTV monitoring to alert relevant parties to risks and identify particularly high-risk areas
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable CCTV detection and tracking of people at riskPart of recurring concern: Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systems
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

    Seek financing and make a final board decision on installing a night-vision, motion-detecting CCTV system linked to management’s mobile phones.

    Stated by The Darlington Farmers Auction Mart Company LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 October 2015.

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

Limited CCTV coverage and access via a Council system

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was given about limited CCTV coverage and access thereto via a Council system. This may not be adequate and consideration ought to be given as to whether a more extensive CCTV installation and monitoring thereof may be able to alert the Company and/or others to potential risks of people harming themselves and/or damaging the property and early intervention might be helpful and further, such CCTV may be able to better identify particularly high risk areas, especially dangerous and fragile roofs. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systems.

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 CCTV monitoring to alert relevant parties to risks and identify particularly high-risk areas

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was given about limited CCTV coverage and access thereto via a Council system. This may not be adequate and consideration ought to be given as to whether a more extensive CCTV installation and monitoring thereof may be able to alert the Company and/or others to potential risks of people harming themselves and/or damaging the property and early intervention might be helpful and further, such CCTV may be able to better identify particularly high risk areas, especially dangerous and fragile roofs. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable CCTV detection and tracking of people at risk; Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systems.

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

Seek financing and make a final board decision on installing a night-vision, motion-detecting CCTV system linked to management’s mobile phones.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since the inquest we have had two CCTV firms out to measure the site, both have taken time in what type of CCTV would be needed, the number of CCTV’s, maximising the area of coverage as the design of the mart makes it extremely hard to cover every corner. The conclusion was that CCTV’s with night vision, movement detection and linkage to the internet where the images can be streamed to Mobile phones of company management.”

Source location

2015-0379-response
Page 1 · response
Published 19 October 2015

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

    Existing signage and site-security systems were considered sufficient to warn people of the risks and secure the premises.

    Stated by The Darlington Farmers Auction Mart Company LimitedExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Existing signage and site-security systems were considered sufficient to warn people of the risks and secure the premises.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Darlington Auction Mart Co Ltd believe that the measures in place before the tragic loss of life of Kyle Hull were enough to make persons entering the Darlington Mart premises at Clifton road aware that the area is a working environment and that any person attempting to gain access to any of the roof areas of any building were doing so at their own risk. The premises after the tragic event on the 7th of April 2015 were visited by Police, HSE and our insurance firm, they were all satisfied with the levels of signage and the systems in place to secure the site.”

Source location

2015-0379-response
Page 1 · response
Published 19 October 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