PFD report

MAYA GRACE KANTENGULE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Aug 2017•Norfolk

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised7

  1. Lack of staff health and safety awareness in the pool area
  2. Failure to maintain working CCTV for checking the pool area
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for drowning risks in swimming poolsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systems
  3. Failure to risk-assess swimming pool birthday parties
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.2

  1. Action

    Stop privately hiring the swimming pool for swimming pool parties.

    Stated by KennedysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 December 2017.
  2. Action

    Arrange formal safety training courses, such as IOSH training, for staff.

    Stated by KennedysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 December 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The pool’s existing risk assessment and general-use arrangements were considered suitable and sufficient without continuous lifeguard supervision.

    Stated by KennedysExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so 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

Lack of staff health and safety awareness in the pool area

Wider context from the report

“(4) There was no evidence of awareness of staff with regard to health and safety in the pool area. ”

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 maintain working CCTV for checking the pool area

Wider context from the report

“(3) Although safety procedures had not been followed on the morning of the swimming pool party, such as going through safety rules with the pool hirer and signing of documentation, and in addition the CCTV (an additional measure used by WRC to check on the pool area) was known to not be working, no checks were made on the pool party by members of staff to ensure safety rules were understood and followed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for drowning risks in swimming pools; Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systems.

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 risk-assess swimming pool birthday parties

Wider context from the report

“(1) Prior to Maya’s death in 2004, independent Contractors had drawn up the Risk Assessments and other Health and Safety documentation relating to the organisation and the use of its facilities by staff and the public. Since 2011, the Risk Assessments were updated internally. These had been deemed “suitable and correct” by South Norfolk Council. Since 2004 there had been no formal Health and Safety Training of Directors or staff at Waveney River Centre (WRC), in particular by those responsible for health and safety and by those updating, reviewing and checking health and safety documentation. (2) Although a Risk Assessment had been completed and updated with regard to the use of the swimming pool in 2016, there was no separate Risk Assessment in place with regard to the holding of swimming pool birthday parties. It was clear from the evidence it was believed by those at WRC to be the responsibility of the person holding the birthday party who would be responsible for the safety of the guests. ”

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 check pool parties for understanding and compliance with safety rules

Wider context from the report

“(3) Although safety procedures had not been followed on the morning of the swimming pool party, such as going through safety rules with the pool hirer and signing of documentation, and in addition the CCTV (an additional measure used by WRC to check on the pool area) was known to not be working, no checks were made on the pool party by members of staff to ensure safety rules were understood and followed. ”

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 complete required pool-hirer safety briefing and documentation

Wider context from the report

“(3) Although safety procedures had not been followed on the morning of the swimming pool party, such as going through safety rules with the pool hirer and signing of documentation, and in addition the CCTV (an additional measure used by WRC to check on the pool area) was known to not be working, no checks were made on the pool party by members of staff to ensure safety rules were understood and followed. ”

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 provide formal health and safety training to responsible personnel and staff

Wider context from the report

“(5) Since Maya’s death, the decision has been made to hold no further external pool parties. The Swimming pool is still used by the public and WRC is still involved in activities involving the public and water. (6) Fourteen months have passed since Maya’s death and there has been no formal health and safety training of Directors and staff. It was said on behalf of WRC they are awaiting the outcome of the inquest before arranging formal health and safety training and in addition the member of staff responsible for updating and reviewing Risk Assessments has suffered with PTSD as a result of Maya’s death. There was no indication that anyone else had been considered in respect of undergoing health and safety training, such as those ultimately responsible for health and safety at WRC or any other member of staff. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate formal health and safety training for responsible staff.

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 formal health and safety training for directors and staff

Wider context from the report

“(1) Prior to Maya’s death in 2004, independent Contractors had drawn up the Risk Assessments and other Health and Safety documentation relating to the organisation and the use of its facilities by staff and the public. Since 2011, the Risk Assessments were updated internally. These had been deemed “suitable and correct” by South Norfolk Council. Since 2004 there had been no formal Health and Safety Training of Directors or staff at Waveney River Centre (WRC), in particular by those responsible for health and safety and by those updating, reviewing and checking health and safety documentation. (2) Although a Risk Assessment had been completed and updated with regard to the use of the swimming pool in 2016, there was no separate Risk Assessment in place with regard to the holding of swimming pool birthday parties. It was clear from the evidence it was believed by those at WRC to be the responsibility of the person holding the birthday party who would be responsible for the safety of the guests. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate formal health and safety training for responsible staff.

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

Stop privately hiring the swimming pool for swimming pool parties.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A decision was made following this sad incident that the Centre would no longer privately hire its pool for swimming pool parties and the relevant risk therefore that is said may have caused Maya's death no longer exists.”

Source location

2017-0317-Response-by-Waveney-River-Centre
Page 2 · response
Published 3 December 2017

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

Arrange formal safety training courses, such as IOSH training, for staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Managing Director made it clear in his evidence that this incident had caused him to think that further training would be prudent and that there was an intention by the Centre to send staff onto formal safety training courses such as IOSH. His evidence was that this would be taken forward once the inquest had concluded. That remains the case and WRC's response to this notice is that such formal training has already been”

Source location

2017-0317-Response-by-Waveney-River-Centre
Page 2 · response
Published 3 December 2017

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 pool’s existing risk assessment and general-use arrangements were considered suitable and sufficient without continuous lifeguard supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The evidence from South Norfolk Council was that the management of the swimming pools has one of the most prescriptive Health and Safety Guidance documents produced by the Health and Safety Executive. The Council accepted that for a pool of this size and depth with its features, there would be no need to continuously supervise the pool. This is the reason why swimming pools in hotels and swimming pools in leisure centres for example routinely do not have lifeguards.”

Source location

2017-0317-Response-by-Waveney-River-Centre
Page 1 · response
Published 3 December 2017

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 evidence did not establish that the Centre believed party organisers were responsible for safety; the hirer accepted responsibility for supervising children.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The evidence was that the Centre would on occasion privately hire its pool to people that wanted to hire it for swimming pool parties. The evidence of the hirer on this occasion was that she knew in advance that there would be no lifeguard. The evidence given by WRC confirmed that she was also told this in advance. This was not challenged by the hirer who said that she could not remember. There was also a very prominent sign on the entrance to the pool making it clear that there was no lifeguard.”

Source location

2017-0317-Response-by-Waveney-River-Centre
Page 1 · response
Published 3 December 2017

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

Discontinuing private swimming-pool parties was considered sufficient because the specific risk associated with those parties no longer existed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A decision was made following this sad incident that the Centre would no longer privately hire its pool for swimming pool parties and the relevant risk therefore that is said may have caused Maya's death no longer exists.”

Source location

2017-0317-Response-by-Waveney-River-Centre
Page 2 · response
Published 3 December 2017

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026