PFD report

Wade Dayabhai Patel · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Oct 2014•Leicester City and South Leicestershire

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

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.

Concerns raised3

  1. Failure to replace safety-noncompliant glass except during refurbishment or after breakage
  2. Presence of safety-noncompliant glass in older rented housing stock
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls for hazardous glass in rented propertiesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety glazing in doors
  3. Lack of a legal requirement for landlords or letting agents to assess glass safety
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls for hazardous glass in rented propertiesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety guidance for managing hazards in rented residential properties
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The Government has no plans to require existing doors to meet current Building Regulations, given their non-retrospective application and major implications for existing buildings.

    Stated by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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 replace safety-noncompliant glass except during refurbishment or after breakage

Wider context from the report

“My understanding is that there is no legal requirement for a landlord or letting agent, to look specifically at safety of glass in a property. I further understand, for example, that there is recent legislation that enhances gas safety, requiring regular checking and recording of the checks by a suitably qualified person. It therefore seems that such glass will only be replaced either in the process of a refurbishment of the property (thereby complying with current building regulations), or when the glass breaks and requires replacement. ”

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

Presence of safety-noncompliant glass in older rented housing stock

Wider context from the report

“The glass in the door is likely to have been the original glass, the property having been built in the 1930's. For obvious reasons the glass did not comply, from a safety viewpoint, with current legislation including building regulations. Much of our housing stock will be of similar age, or older than, ████████ A significant proportion of that stock will be rented. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls for hazardous glass in rented properties; Inadequate safety glazing in doors.

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

Lack of a legal requirement for landlords or letting agents to assess glass safety

Wider context from the report

“My understanding is that there is no legal requirement for a landlord or letting agent, to look specifically at safety of glass in a property. I further understand, for example, that there is recent legislation that enhances gas safety, requiring regular checking and recording of the checks by a suitably qualified person. It therefore seems that such glass will only be replaced either in the process of a refurbishment of the property (thereby complying with current building regulations), or when the glass breaks and requires replacement. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls for hazardous glass in rented properties; Inadequate safety guidance for managing hazards in rented residential properties.

Open source report

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 Government has no plans to require existing doors to meet current Building Regulations, given their non-retrospective application and major implications for existing buildings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, the Building Regulations only apply where building work takes place, typically the erection or extension of a building and the Building Act 1984 does not provide for the retrospective application of current standards to existing buildings. The Regulations therefore will not require that existing doors be made to comply with current standards unless building work subject to the Regulations is carried out to the part of the building in question. Requiring old buildings, designed and built with very different standards in mind, to meet the most modern Building Regulation requirements would have major implications for”

Source location

2014-0434-Response-by-Department-for-Communities-Local-Government
Page 1 · response
Published 9 October 2014

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 Government has no plans to change the HHSRS because its guidance already identifies collisions with doors as a hazard.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The quality of privately rented housing has improved rapidly over the past decade, and levels of satisfaction compare well to other tenures. However, a small minority of properties in the sector are in poor condition. Tenants have a right to live in safe and well maintained homes and local authorities have strong powers to tackle poor quality accommodation in their area. We expect them to use those powers if necessary. Where a serious hazard is identified, the local authority must take appropriate action. This can include formal action such as issuing an improvement notice requiring the owner to make improvements to the property, banning the use of the whole or part of a dwelling or taking emergency action to fix the hazard where there is an immediate risk to health and safety.”

Source location

2014-0434-Response-by-Department-for-Communities-Local-Government
Page 2 · response
Published 9 October 2014

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