PFD report

Russell Paul BOWRY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Nov 2019•Bedfordshire and Luton

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
0

Described in 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 raised6

  1. Failure to ensure work-at-height systems provide adequate fall protection
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe work-at-height operations
  2. Unsafe working practices routinely occurring in rigging work
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe selection and execution of work methods exposing employees to hazards
  3. Failure to provide competent planning and supervision of work at height
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe work-at-height operations
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

Failure to ensure work-at-height systems provide adequate fall protection

Wider context from the report

“(b) Employers in your industry may not realise they are responsible for designing the necessary safety features for work at height, including engaging the services of those who have the right skills to design such systems. Safe systems of work include ensuring that all clipping on points and safety features have the necessary impact requirements to hold a falling person and that the work can be done while the riggers are always clipped on or, that it is safe without clipping on; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe work-at-height operations.

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

Unsafe working practices routinely occurring in rigging work

Wider context from the report

“(c) Unsafe working practices are routinely encountered by riggers in your industry and due to the structure of your industry – in which a small number of employers engage a large pool of self-employed riggers for individual jobs of short duration – riggers appear to have little influence over the fall protection or fall prevention measures that are put in place to keep them safe. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe selection and execution of work methods exposing employees to hazards.

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 provide competent planning and supervision of work at height

Wider context from the report

“(a) Employers in your industry may believe that they can safely delegate to individual riggers the responsibility to plan work at height, supervise it and carry it out safely. Russell Bowry was an NRC level 2 rigger but he was working directly under ELP, whose employees had no NRC qualifications. There was no head rigger. ELP gave evidence that it was their expectation that experienced riggers could be relied upon to ensure their own safety. Yet the riggers from whom I heard, told me that they were not always clipped on; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe work-at-height operations.

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 ensure riggers remain clipped on during work at height

Wider context from the report

“(a) Employers in your industry may believe that they can safely delegate to individual riggers the responsibility to plan work at height, supervise it and carry it out safely. Russell Bowry was an NRC level 2 rigger but he was working directly under ELP, whose employees had no NRC qualifications. There was no head rigger. ELP gave evidence that it was their expectation that experienced riggers could be relied upon to ensure their own safety. Yet the riggers from whom I heard, told me that they were not always clipped on; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe work-at-height operations.

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

Limited rigger influence over fall protection and fall prevention measures

Wider context from the report

“(c) Unsafe working practices are routinely encountered by riggers in your industry and due to the structure of your industry – in which a small number of employers engage a large pool of self-employed riggers for individual jobs of short duration – riggers appear to have little influence over the fall protection or fall prevention measures that are put in place to keep them safe. ”

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 ensure competent design of necessary work-at-height safety features

Wider context from the report

“(b) Employers in your industry may not realise they are responsible for designing the necessary safety features for work at height, including engaging the services of those who have the right skills to design such systems. Safe systems of work include ensuring that all clipping on points and safety features have the necessary impact requirements to hold a falling person and that the work can be done while the riggers are always clipped on or, that it is safe without clipping on; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe work-at-height operations.

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
0/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.