THREE official inquiries took place within 21 months of the fire.

The first was Oliver Popplewell's inquiry under the 1975 Safety at Sports Grounds Act looked into the cause of the fire and ground safety at Valley Parade.

The second was inquest into the deaths of the 56 by Bradford Coroner James Turnbull.

The third was a High Court action for damages brought by Susan and Martin Fletcher and others against Bradford City, West Yorkshire County Council and the Health and Safety Executive.

Mr Justice Popplewell, as he was in 1985, accepted that the probable cause of the fire was a lighted cigarette end or match falling through a gap in the stand's old wooden floor into a pile of inflammable debris below.

MORE BRADFORD CITY FIRE ANNIVERSARY HEADLINES

City co-chairman Stafford Heginbotham was sceptical about the lighted cigarette theory. Journalist Ian Trueman thought the fire had been started by a smoke bomb thrown from the Kop.

In his recent book - 56: The Story of the Bradford Fire - Martin Fletcher, who was 12 when he escaped from the fire but lost his brother, father, uncle and grandfather in it, challenged both attributed causes.

The Inquiry at City Hall lasted for seven days. On July 24 Mr Justice Popplewell gave his verdict:-

"I am quite satisfied that cause of the fire was the dropping of a lighted match, or a cigarette or tobacco on to debris beneath the floorboards in rows I or J, in between the seats 141 and 143.

"It is quite impossible to determine who caused the fire to start; indeed it would be grossly unfair to point the finger at any one person."

Martin Fletcher strongly disputes that. Popplewell's recommendations led to changes in the 1975 Safety at Sports Ground Act and greater safety improvements at sports grounds holding 500 or more people.

The inquest jury brought in a verdict of death by misadventure but added that all 56 deaths could have been avoided. As the Director of Public Prosecutions had not indicated that prosecutions were pending, James Turnbull told the jury:-

"What you say in your recommendations must not seek to imply any particular person was responsible civilly or criminally for this event...You must speak in general terms and not particular terms."

On February 23, 1987, Sir Joseph Cantley, sitting as a deputy high court judge, considered whether adequate warnings about the potential fire hazard of the stand had been made by the Health and Safety Executive, were reinforced by West Yorkshire County Council and followed up by the club with action.

Third and Fourth Division clubs in the old four-division structure of the Football League were subject to less stringent safety regulations than Second and First Division clubs.

The judge dismissed the claim of actionable negligence brought against the Health and Safety Executive, but he found against West Yorkshire County Council and Bradford City, stating:-

"In my view, the continuing negligence of the Club and the continued inaction or indifference of the County Council through its various departments and in both of its capacities, after it had been alerted t the existence of the danger, were concurrent causes of this disaster, and I hold both of them liable to damages to the plaintiff.

"However, the responsibility of the Club is, in my view, very much the greater and I apportion responsibility between the two defendants as to two-thirds to the first defendant (Bradford City) and one-third to the third defendant (the County Council)."

The findings resulted in damages to 254 people.