PFD report

Marko Petrovic · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Sep 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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised2

  1. Lack of written guidelines for dismantling cantilevered scaffolds
  2. Failure to require a RAMS for dismantling scaffolding
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

Lack of written guidelines for dismantling cantilevered scaffolds

Wider context from the report

“During the inquest evidence was heard to suggest that there are no written guidelines with respect to the dismantling of cantilevered scaffolds. • During the inquest evidence was heard to suggest that there are currently no written guidelines with respect to dismantling of cantilevered scaffolds. In this respect I would ask that the consideration be given to a further review of the existing guidelines. • Although evidence was heard to suggest that a RAMS had been initiated with respect to the erection of the scaffolding, a further RAMS to cover the subsequent dismantlement of the scaffolding was not required. I would ask that consideration be given to the appropriateness of further RAMS specific to the dismantlement of the scaffolding. ”

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 require a RAMS for dismantling scaffolding

Wider context from the report

“During the inquest evidence was heard to suggest that there are no written guidelines with respect to the dismantling of cantilevered scaffolds. • During the inquest evidence was heard to suggest that there are currently no written guidelines with respect to dismantling of cantilevered scaffolds. In this respect I would ask that the consideration be given to a further review of the existing guidelines. • Although evidence was heard to suggest that a RAMS had been initiated with respect to the erection of the scaffolding, a further RAMS to cover the subsequent dismantlement of the scaffolding was not required. I would ask that consideration be given to the appropriateness of further RAMS specific to the dismantlement of the scaffolding. ”

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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.