Belinda Jane Wise · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Feb 2016•Leicester City and South Leicestershire

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

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 auditory warnings for opening rear lift doors
  2. Lack of visual markings distinguishing rear lift doors

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Health and Safety Executive

    Raise the incident at the next European lift forum meeting and ask whether other Member States have experienced similar incidents.

  2. Health and Safety Executive

    Raise the incident with the relevant BSI committee at its next meeting for consideration in future Lift Directive revisions.

  3. Borough of Oadby & Wigston

    Visit the store within the next month to check whether the recommended lift safety work has been completed.

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

  1. Health and Safety Executive

    New legislation is not being proposed at this stage because there is insufficient evidence, including no known similar incidents.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. Borough of Oadby & Wigston

    Sainsbury is assigned responsibility for carrying out the recommended lift door visibility and warning-message improvements.

    Redirects 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

Lack of auditory warnings for opening rear lift doors

Wider context from the report

“It was a finding of the jury that there were no signs or auditory warnings within the lift to indicate that the rear doors would open. Evidence taken from the Sainsbury's store and from the Borough Council investigation confirmed that such warnings are not standard or mandatory. In this instance, it was clear from the evidence that the deceased did not appreciate that the part of the lift that she was leaning was actually the rear doors, as they were not marked in any way. Further consideration should be given to the possibility of making the doors more apparent and distinguishable from the rest of the interior, and also to the sounding of a warning message (that may assist visually impaired passengers). ”

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

Lack of visual markings distinguishing rear lift doors

Wider context from the report

“It was a finding of the jury that there were no signs or auditory warnings within the lift to indicate that the rear doors would open. Evidence taken from the Sainsbury's store and from the Borough Council investigation confirmed that such warnings are not standard or mandatory. In this instance, it was clear from the evidence that the deceased did not appreciate that the part of the lift that she was leaning was actually the rear doors, as they were not marked in any way. Further consideration should be given to the possibility of making the doors more apparent and distinguishable from the rest of the interior, and also to the sounding of a warning message (that may assist visually impaired passengers). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Raise the incident at the next European lift forum meeting and ask whether other Member States have experienced similar incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We propose two actions to raise awareness of the incident with relevant standard setting bodies, so that they can form a view on whether further action might be needed:”

Source location

Belinda-Wise-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 15 February 2016

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

Raise the incident with the relevant BSI committee at its next meeting for consideration in future Lift Directive revisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We propose two actions to raise awareness of the incident with relevant standard setting bodies, so that they can form a view on whether further action might be needed:”

Source location

Belinda-Wise-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 15 February 2016

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

Visit the store within the next month to check whether the recommended lift safety work has been completed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although there are no legal requirements to install signage or warning messages in the lift, the coroner’s opinion is that future deaths could occur if this is not done. With this in mind, the council strongly recommends that Sainsbury carry out the work suggested by the coroner. A visit will take place to the store within the next month to check that the required work has been done.”

Source location

Sainsburys-and-Oadby-Council-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 15 February 2016

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

New legislation is not being proposed at this stage because there is insufficient evidence, including no known similar incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Any new UK legislation would need to be evidentially based to satisfy the Secretary of State and UK stakeholders. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is not aware of any previous incidents of this nature. We have also discussed the matter with the UK lift industry and key users and they are also unaware of any similar incidents. The HSE is therefore not proposing to introduce new UK legislation in this matter at this stage.”

Source location

Belinda-Wise-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 15 February 2016

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

Sainsbury is assigned responsibility for carrying out the recommended lift door visibility and warning-message improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although there are no legal requirements to install signage or warning messages in the lift, the coroner’s opinion is that future deaths could occur if this is not done. With this in mind, the council strongly recommends that Sainsbury carry out the work suggested by the coroner. A visit will take place to the store within the next month to check that the required work has been done.”

Source location

Sainsburys-and-Oadby-Council-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 15 February 2016

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

Official responses located
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026