Recurring concern

Unsafe agricultural tractor and trailer safety arrangements

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 10 Jul 2015•Latest report 26 Sep 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes dedicated safety-system failures affecting agricultural tractors and trailers, including current guidance for road use, coupling and braking controls, safe extraction or recovery methods, maintenance safeguards and related operational arrangements where these directly control tractor-and-trailer risks.

Not included

  • Excludes generic agricultural staffing, training or record-keeping deficiencies unless they directly impair an agricultural tractor-and-trailer safety control.
  • Excludes ordinary farm operations, vehicle maintenance or road-user hazards where no tractor-and-trailer safety arrangement is identified.
  • Excludes general vehicle approval or road-infrastructure concerns not specifically tied to agricultural tractor-and-trailer safety.
  • Excludes unrelated trailer, vehicle or machinery hazards without an agricultural tractor-and-trailer connection.
Reports
4

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
5

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2015–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
11

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department for Transport2
Agricultural Engineers Association1
Bailey Trailers Limited1
British Agricultural and Garden Machinery Association1
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency1
Health and Safety Executive1
Ministry of Defence1
National Farmers' Union (NFU)1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Richard Ellis · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Richard Ellis died at the scene after a tractor’s handbrake failed while the tractor was on an incline, causing it to roll onto him as he detached a towing strap. The principal concern was that agricultural tractors may have no legal servicing or maintenance requirements, leaving maintenance dependent on vehicle owners’ discretion.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of legal requirements for servicing and maintenance of agricultural tractors outside road traffic requirements

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence was that there are no legal requirements for the servicing and maintenance of agricultural tractors which do not fall within the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the associated regulations. As such, the maintenance of these vehicles is dependent on the discretion of the vehicle owners. ”

    Source location

    Richard Ellis · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    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

    Continue monitoring the effectiveness of vehicle safety regulations to identify potential amendments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Department will continue to monitor the effectiveness of vehicle safety regulations to identify any potential amendments.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Transport
    Page 4 · response
    Published 29 September 2025

    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

    For private-land incidents covered by health and safety legislation, enforcement responsibility rests with the Health and Safety Executive.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “If the incident took place on a private land, there is health and safety legislation (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974) that covers the maintenance and servicing of agricultural vehicles. This legislation is enforced by the Health & Safety Executive and an employer is required to ensure, so far is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of both their employees and non-employees who may be affected by their undertaking. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (“PUWER”) provide a set of more specific duties in relation to work equipment, including that employers ensure their work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair. This is also maintained by the HSE and we suggest that you consider writing to them should the circumstances of this case fall under this legislation.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Transport
    Page 3 · response
    Published 29 September 2025

    Open published response
  2. Derby and Derbyshire

    AI-generated summary

    Jon-Paul PRIGENT · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Jon-Paul Prigent died on 30 July 2020 when a soil-laden trailer decoupled from its tractor, overturned, and compressed the car in which he was sitting, causing asphyxiation. The principal concerns were the absence of periodic independent testing for agricultural tractors and trailers, the lack of required safety features to prevent decoupling, and the risks posed by worn, overloaded, and unevenly loaded equipment used on public roads.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of current agricultural tractor and trailer safety arrangements to keep pace with changing road use

    Wider context from the report

    “4. Tractors and trailers are increasingly large and carrying heavier loads due to farm consolidation and are correspondingly traveling further distances on public roads to reach more distant areas on larger farms, and agri-business depots and processing sites. The current safety arrangements have probably failed to keep up to date and relevant and were more suited to an era when agricultural use tractors and trailers might simply have been crossing a road to get form one field to another. ”

    Source location

    Jon-Paul PRIGENT · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of periodic independent vehicle testing for tractors and trailers used on roads for agricultural purposes

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Tractors and trailers driven on roads for ‘agricultural purposes’ are not subject to periodic independent vehicle testing. This places the responsibility for checking roadworthiness on the user which is clearly dependent on the diligence and competence of the user. It is therefore highly likely that some tractors and trailers are being driven on roads for ‘agricultural purposes’ in unroadworthy and unsafe condition, as was clear in Mr Prigent’s inquest. ”

    Source location

    Jon-Paul PRIGENT · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    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

    Operate the Agricultural Tractor-Trailer Scheme, combining roadworthiness inspections, brake performance testing, technician approval and refresher training.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “While there is no requirement for the roadworthiness of tractors and trailers to be independently tested, BAGMA does operate a voluntary scheme. The Agricultural Tractor-Trailer Scheme (ATTS) incorporates both roadworthiness inspection and brake performance testing in one package. In our view, the ATTS is the only testing regime that provides a robust assessment of the roadworthiness of agricultural tractors and trailers as no other scheme incorporates brake performance testing alongside roadworthiness inspection.”

    Source location

    Response from Agricultural Engineers Association and British Agricultural and Garden Machinery Association
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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

    Produce, update and disseminate guidance on legal requirements and practical measures for safe tractor and trailer braking.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Recognising that much of the responsibility for ensuring the safety of tractor and trailer braking rests with the user and the service technicians that support them, the AEA has produced detailed guidance on both the legal requirements and the practical steps needed to ensure that braking systems are safe and well maintained. Our Look Behind You guide was first published in 2010 and was updated in 2020, incorporating interactive elements, such as short videos and animations, helping to improve understanding of key aspects of safety. The guide has been widely distributed through machinery dealers and is also available online at: https://aea.uk.com/look-behind-you/. It was supported by most of the main suppliers of tractors and agricultural trailers to the UK market.”

    Source location

    Response from Agricultural Engineers Association and British Agricultural and Garden Machinery Association
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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

    Publish and make freely available guidance on the safe selection, use, inspection and maintenance of agricultural machinery, including tractors and trailers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To help dutyholders comply with their legal duties regarding the use of agricultural machinery, including tractors and trailers, HSE has published a range of guidance which is freely available to download from our website. Guidance includes, but is not limited to:”

    Source location

    Response from HSE
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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

    Instruct officials to examine further measures for ensuring the roadworthiness of tractors, trailers and coupling devices.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In view of your report, I will instruct my officials to examine what more could be done to ensure the roadworthiness of tractors, trailers and coupling devices. Additionally, to help promote good maintenance of agricultural vehicles I have asked my officials to investigate how best to raise awareness of the DVSA’s published guidance on maintaining roadworthiness and vehicle loading, as well as the existing voluntary trailer maintenance scheme. My officials will consider how best this information can be communicated to operators of agricultural vehicles.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 3 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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

    Continue monitoring the effectiveness of vehicle safety regulations to identify potential amendments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Department will continue to monitor the effectiveness of vehicle safety regulations to identify any potential amendments.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 3 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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

    Use of agricultural vehicles on public roads falls outside HSE’s workplace health and safety enforcement remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “HSE are Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety, this includes use of work equipment such as vehicles in the workplace, but would not routinely include use of vehicles on public roads.”

    Source location

    Response from HSE
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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 Secretary of State for Transport must decide whether to introduce compulsory roadworthiness testing for agricultural tractors and trailers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Turning to future actions, as the coroner’s report notes, there is currently no requirement for independent roadworthiness testing for agricultural tractors and trailers, where they are solely used for agricultural activities. The AEA and BAGMA have long supported calls for such a regime to be introduced, particularly for the larger and heavier vehicles that are now commonplace. While any decision on making such a scheme compulsory must be made by the Secretary of State for Transport, AEA and BAGMA would be happy to offer to take the lead in administering a scheme.”

    Source location

    Response from Agricultural Engineers Association and British Agricultural and Garden Machinery Association
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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

    Public-road vehicle testing, safety features and coupling requirements are matters for DVSA or other appropriate organisations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Periodic independent vehicle testing requirements specifically for tractors and trailers driven on the public road would be a matter for other organisations such as the DVSA to consider.”

    Source location

    Response from HSE
    Page 3 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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

    Annual roadworthiness testing was not extended to slower agricultural tractors because their road use was considered too limited to make it proportionate.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “My Department conducted a consultation in 2016 on introducing roadworthiness testing for fast tractors used for commercial haulage. As a result, agricultural tractors capable of a speed over 40km/h (approximately 25mph) being used for commercial haulage were brought into scope of the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981, therefore requiring them to be subject to annual roadworthiness testing. At the time, it was decided that it would not be proportionate to bring slower speed agricultural tractors in scope of annual roadworthiness testing given their use on roads is limited in comparison with other vehicles.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    Open published response
  3. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Aaron Darie James Fretwell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Aaron Darie James Fretwell died after an agricultural trailer body descended while he was working beneath it, causing crush injuries. Concerns included the absence of a propping device and warning signs on the trailer, and evidence that other agricultural trailers may also have lacked these safety features, creating concern about comparable future accidents.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of mechanical propping devices on agricultural trailers

    Wider context from the report

    “1. No propping device was fitted to the trailer, which is understood to have been manufactured by Bailey Trailers Ltd in about 2002. 2. No warning signs were affixed to the trailer directing that the trailer body should be propped before anyone worked underneath it. 3. Trailers manufactured by 2002 should have complied with BS EN 1853: 1999 and/or the supply of machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 which required a mechanical support to be installed to facilitate maintenance work to be carried out safely. 4. Evidence taken at the Inquest indicated that many types of agricultural trailers were in use without such propping devices or warning signs, which gives rise to concern that comparable accidents could occur in the future. ”

    Source location

    Aaron Darie James Fretwell · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    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

    Design tipping trailers so routine maintenance does not require work beneath a raised body.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Company has designed the tipping trailers in a way which eliminates the need for maintenance to be carried out underneath a raised body which in itself would introduce potential risks which would need to be managed and reduced by engineering controls, i.e. by use of a prop.”

    Source location

    2021-0331-Response-from-Bailey-Trailers-Ltd_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 October 2021

    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

    Manufacture all tipping body models with hinged mechanical body props as standard safety features.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Notwithstanding that point, the Company can confirm that all of its tipping body models are now manufactured with body props as a standard feature as per paragraph 4.7.2 of BS EN 1853:2017 which states that “a mechanical support hinged to the trailer, in conformity with the requirements given in EN ISO 4254-1:2015, 4.11 shall be provided to secure the body in high position during maintenance operations”.”

    Source location

    2021-0331-Response-from-Bailey-Trailers-Ltd_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 October 2021

    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

    Revise the Operation and Maintenance Manual to require safe deployment of body supports and prohibit work beneath an unsecured raised body.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The general safety instructions within the Company’s revised Operation & Maintenance Manual for all tipping body trailers now states, “For normal maintenance and repairs it is not necessary to”

    Source location

    2021-0331-Response-from-Bailey-Trailers-Ltd_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 October 2021

    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

    Use safety decals to reinforce that users should not raise the trailer body unless necessary and securely supported.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “raise the body, the design of the trailer permits normal maintenance activities and adjustments to be undertaken without the need to raise the tipping body. In extraordinary circumstances where it may become necessary to raise the body, deploy the [mechanical body] support as described below”. The Manual reiterates the warning that users should “never work beneath the raised trailer body unless it is securely propped and supported”, and guidance is also given on how to deploy and stow the body support safely. Relevant safety decals (or signs) continue to be used to reinforce this point about not tipping the body unless absolutely necessary in the opinion of the user.”

    Source location

    2021-0331-Response-from-Bailey-Trailers-Ltd_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 October 2021

    Open published response
  4. Exeter and Greater Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Cameron William LAING · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Cameron William Laing, a soldier, was crushed between a military lorry and a 4-tonne trailer while attempting to reattach the trailer at Bracken Tor on 29 April 2014. The report raised concerns that soldiers did not understand how reconnecting the air line could release the trailer’s emergency brake, that alternative recovery methods were not taught, and that relevant training was not provided.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to teach or recognise alternative trailer-extraction manoeuvres

    Wider context from the report

    “2. We received evidence from the Vehicle Examiner that an alternative method of extracting the trailer from the confined area at Bracken Tor Hostel would have been able to pull the trailer backwards via a DROPS vehicle, which had the necessary towing attachments, from behind or “nose manoeuvre” the trailer. Neither of these possibilities (which would have avoided manual handling and vulnerability to being trapped between the trailer and the DROPS) were taught to the Soldiers or recognised by them to be a solution to recovery of the trailer. ”

    Source location

    Cameron William LAING · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    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

    Review the training package and determine that additional recovery manoeuvres should not be taught to vehicle operators.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “After the accident the training package was reviewed by the Training Requirements Authority and it was determined that additional manoeuvres should not be taught to operators. The advanced techniques described by the Vehicle Examiner at the inquest are only to be conducted by the specialist mechanical engineers of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME). It is not feasible or necessary for every vehicle operator to be trained to such a specialist capability. The approach used within the Army for recovery, as laid down in the All Arms Equipment Recovery Manual (AAERM) and taught to all operators, is that recovery by driver/operators is restricted to the capabilities of the recovery equipment held by the unit and as part of the vehicle’s Complete Equipment Schedule.”

    Source location

    2015-0268-Response-by-MOD
    Page 1 · response
    Published 10 July 2015

    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

    Existing recovery arrangements restrict driver/operator recovery to available unit equipment, so additional manoeuvres need not be taught to vehicle operators.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “After the accident the training package was reviewed by the Training Requirements Authority and it was determined that additional manoeuvres should not be taught to operators. The advanced techniques described by the Vehicle Examiner at the inquest are only to be conducted by the specialist mechanical engineers of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME). It is not feasible or necessary for every vehicle operator to be trained to such a specialist capability. The approach used within the Army for recovery, as laid down in the All Arms Equipment Recovery Manual (AAERM) and taught to all operators, is that recovery by driver/operators is restricted to the capabilities of the recovery equipment held by the unit and as part of the vehicle’s Complete Equipment Schedule.”

    Source location

    2015-0268-Response-by-MOD
    Page 1 · response
    Published 10 July 2015

    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

    Specialist recovery techniques and assistance are assigned to Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers personnel rather than ordinary vehicle operators.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “After the accident the training package was reviewed by the Training Requirements Authority and it was determined that additional manoeuvres should not be taught to operators. The advanced techniques described by the Vehicle Examiner at the inquest are only to be conducted by the specialist mechanical engineers of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME). It is not feasible or necessary for every vehicle operator to be trained to such a specialist capability. The approach used within the Army for recovery, as laid down in the All Arms Equipment Recovery Manual (AAERM) and taught to all operators, is that recovery by driver/operators is restricted to the capabilities of the recovery equipment held by the unit and as part of the vehicle’s Complete Equipment Schedule.”

    Source location

    2015-0268-Response-by-MOD
    Page 1 · response
    Published 10 July 2015

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026