Ahmad Doumani Khan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Jun 2014•South Yorkshire (Western)

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

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 raised1

  1. Failure to prevent easy access to the top of the perimeter wall

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Sheffield City Council

    Contact Q Park Ltd and its managing director to encourage possible alterations improving protection of the car park’s top-deck parapet.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Sheffield City Council

    The Planning Service cannot formally require parapet alterations because there is no planning breach and the facility complies with Building Regulations.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant 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

Failure to prevent easy access to the top of the perimeter wall

Wider context from the report

“(1) Access to the perimeter wall is very easy. There is the height issue (only about 3 feet), but also the fact that inside the wall is a crash/protective barrier for the parking of cars, which was described by the friend as being used by Mr. Khan as a ‘step’, up on to the wall. The concern is that any person, of almost any age, and certainly much younger than Mr. Khan, could quickly and easily gain access to the top of the perimeter, wall for any purpose. Such access is clearly dangerous. ”

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

Contact Q Park Ltd and its managing director to encourage possible alterations improving protection of the car park’s top-deck parapet.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Nevertheless I have written to Q Park Ltd to suggest possible alterations to the building to try and prevent something like this happening again. Officers have also spoken to the Managing Director of Q Park, ████████ in a bid to persuade them to take action, although we cannot insist on this.”

Source location

2014-0291-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 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 Planning Service cannot formally require parapet alterations because there is no planning breach and the facility complies with Building Regulations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On receipt of the Coroner’s report last year my enforcement team established that there was no breach of planning control at the Q Park facility and that the building is also compliant with the Building Regulations. This means that there is no formal action that we can take in this case.”

Source location

2014-0291-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 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

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026