PFD report

Ahmad Doumani Khan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Jun 2014•South 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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

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 raised1

  1. Failure to prevent easy access to the top of the perimeter wall
Responses linked to these concerns

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

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

  1. Action

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

    Stated by Sheffield City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2014.

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

  1. Position

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

    Stated by Sheffield City CouncilUnable 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026