Recurring concern

Failure to reliably share road-safety incident information with highway authorities

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 3 Apr 2014•Latest report 23 Jun 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures to identify, record, transfer, acknowledge or act on safety-relevant road-incident and dangerous-road-condition information shared between police, ambulance services, witnesses, highway authorities and other functions responsible for road safety management.

Not included

  • Excludes generic inter-agency communication failures where the information does not concern road safety or highway risk management.
  • Excludes failures in highway inspection, hazard reporting, maintenance or remedial work where the information-sharing process is not itself deficient.
  • Excludes failures to notify police, emergency services or other recipients when no highway-authority or road-management safety function is involved.
  • Excludes the underlying road hazard, collision or injury where no failure to share relevant road-safety information is identified.
Reports
5

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
5

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
4

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.

Amey plc1
Department for Transport1
Durham County Council1
Lincolnshire County Council1
Lincolnshire Police1
Sheffield City Council1
South Yorkshire Police1
Surrey County Council1
Yorkshire Water Services Limited1

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. Greater Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    David Lee WALSH · 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

    David Lee Walsh died at the scene after the Mercedes GLC300 he was travelling in left the road at Whitegates Farm, Tetney Lock Road, Tetney, and entered the Louth Canal on 6 January 2024. The concern was that highway-related collisions are not reported directly to the Highways Department immediately, meaning incidents may occur before the annual review and potentially before preventative action is taken.

    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 immediately report highway-condition-related injury or fatality collisions to the Highways Department

    Wider context from the report

    “During the evidence provided by the Highways Department, the Highways Officer reported that road traffic collisions, where there are injuries or fatalities that may have been contributed to by the condition of the highway, are not immediately reported directly to the Highways Department by the Police. The Police complete a Stat 19 Form which is then sent to the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership. The information from the Stat 19 Form is then collated and placed onto the WINGS software programme which is a Council owned software programme. This information is reviewed on an annual basis where the types of incidents are considered along with the traffic flow on that road and it gives a score. Based on the score there is then a ranking of sites where there has been more than one collision within a set area (known as a Cluster). The score is used to decide where the Highways Department should intervene first on looking at potential safety improvements. The Accident Investigation Team and the Road Safety Partnership then look at each of those Cluster Sites and investigate those sites. Consideration will then be given to what improvements could be made to the highway to reduce the risk of future incidents. As these reports are only considered annually there is the possibility that other incidents can occur prior to the annual review that could have been prevented had a report been made to the Highways Department at the time of the incident. ”

    Source location

    David Lee WALSH · 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

    Operate the improved fatal collision notification process, distributing reports, recording potential highway issues, checking records, notifying relevant teams and considering preventive actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Regarding the reporting of potential highway issues in fatal collisions more widely, I am pleased to confirm that LCC systems have recently been improved to ensure that any possible highway issues are identified at the earliest opportunity.”

    Source location

    Response from Lincolnshire County Council & Lincolnshire Police
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 July 2025

    Open published response

  2. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Charles Michael Stringer · 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

    Charles Michael Stringer, a cyclist, died after hitting a pothole on Church Lane, causing a punctured front tyre and loss of control that resulted in a fatal chest injury. The report raises concerns about Surrey County Council’s lack of documented reflection, changes to pothole-management systems, communication, risk assessment, defect categorisation and timely repairs following his death.

    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 ensure timely communication of road complaints between the contact centre and highways department

    Wider context from the report

    “2. A lack of action and/or change to the management of potholes by SCC following Mr Stringer’s death SCC has indicated in written submissions that a number of discussions have taken place following Mr Stringer’s death but there has been no documented changes in systems or practice in particular: 1. What steps have been taken to ensure inspectors of defects are fully informed of recent complaints including those from members of the public regarding damage to bicycles by the state of the road. 2. What steps have been taken in the provision of a detailed and robust risk assessment by inspectors with all the available information available such as past complaints, the nature of the road and who uses the road to ensure a ‘holistic’ approach to decision making with regard to the necessity and the speed of road repairs. 3. What, if any, changes have been made to the pictorial guide and the matrix given to inspectors to ensure training there is not an ‘overly mechanistic’ assessment of a road defect. 4. What steps have been taken to ensure there is appropriate and timely communication between the SCC contact centre and the highways department such as a standard operating procedure in place when complaints must be forwarded on and responded to? 5. What steps have been taken to ensure repairs are completed in a timely fashion after serious injuries and deaths have occurred, as a result of a road defect? ”

    Source location

    Charles Michael Stringer · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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

    Instruct customer-care operatives to contact Highways directly and immediately when they are unsure about reported issues.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The primary method for contacting the Highways service is by using the on-line web-portal which is where the vast majority of highway concerns are reported and which go directly to the Highways Service. Customers are also able to phone the SCC contact centre to raise issues and the contact centre will log issues with the Highways Service on their behalf. The corporate standard response time is 5 days.”

    Source location

    Response from Surrey County Council
    Page 5 · response
    Published 14 October 2022

    Open published response

  3. Derby and Derbyshire

    AI-generated summary

    Heike MOJAY-SINCLARE · 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

    Heike Mojay-Sinclare drowned after her car became stuck in high and rising flood water at a ford on Doles Lane, Derbyshire, in late December 2018. The report raised concerns about the lack of mandatory standards, inspection and maintenance requirements for ford depth gauges, and insufficient sharing of information about previous serious incidents.

    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 notify relevant local authorities of serious river ford incidents

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The inquest heard that there were a number of previous serious incidents which it appears were not notified to the relevant local authority, and that if they had been there would likely have been a review of measures relating to the river ford. A mandatory requirement for inter-agency information sharing in these circumstances is indicated. ”

    Source location

    Heike MOJAY-SINCLARE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    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

    Local agencies are responsible for sharing information about incidents; no requirement requires police and local authorities to do so.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “4. I appreciate that there were a number of previous incidents at this ford that the local highway authority was not made aware of, but I am afraid I cannot comment on the why this might have happened. While service agreements are often in place between forces and local authorities there are no existing requirements for this to take place. The sharing of information locally is a matter for local agencies. You may wish to consider bringing this matter to the attention of your Local Resilience Forum.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 September 2021

    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

    No Departmental action is considered necessary because the relevant decisions rest with local authorities and tools are already available.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I hope this response has explained my thinking on why I do not believe there are any actions necessary from the Department. I am afraid the concerns that you have raised are issues where the decision to act rests with the local authority, and there are tools available to them already to enable them to do so.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 September 2021

    Open published response

  4. South Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Sean Craig Salvin · 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

    Sean Craig Salvin died on 30 December 2015 from severe injuries sustained when his car left a heavily flooded road at Woolley Wood Bottom, Sheffield. The report identified concerns about failures by authorities to collect, share and collate information about incidents and flooding, as well as concerns about risk assessment and the identification of the location's increasing risk.

    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 inform the relevant road-management function of a serious incident

    Wider context from the report

    “d) ████████ had suffered unpleasant injuries including a fractures to his lower back. Although this became known to the South Yorkshire Police, no adjustment was made. Amey advised the court that they had not been made aware of this incident. ”

    Source location

    Mr Sean Craig Salvin · 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

    Develop and share interagency protocols and strategies to improve the collation and sharing of safety information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since receiving your Report the Council has been working collaboratively with the South Yorkshire Police, Yorkshire Water PLC and Amey Hallam PLC to address the issues you raised. There has been extensive dialogue, including a number of meetings, which have culminated in the Protocols and Strategies that are referred to in the supporting documentation, all of which have been shared with the other agencies involved.”

    Source location

    Sean-Salvin-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 May 2017

    Open published response

  5. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    MELVIN BANDTOCK · 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

    MELVIN BANDTOCK, aged 55, died after losing control of his motorcycle on black ice and colliding with an oncoming bus on 28 December 2013. The road had not been treated under the local authority’s gritting or salting regime. Concerns included information sharing between Durham Constabulary and the local authority and reviewing procedures to ensure a timely and proportionate response to potentially dangerous road conditions.

    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 collective information sharing between police and the local authority

    Wider context from the report

    “Evidence was given that there is a Duty Manager on call to assess changing weather reports and the collation of information obtained from other sources, in particular the police, in order to decide whether salting/gritting machines should be deployed either on a local or County wide basis. On the day in question the Duty Manager believed that weather temperatures would increase in a relatively short period of time whereas in reality they did not do so. There were a high number of collision incidents reported to the police that morning some of which resulted in report being made to the County Council. Some gritting/salting vehicles were deployed. It will take about an hour for gritting/salting lorries to be able to commence their work and a route would take up to three hours to complete. The time that it therefore takes to complete a gritting/salting run is a factor which is considered by the Duty Manager on the question of whether to deploy or not in conjunction with the weather condition reports and as a result of information gleaned from road temperature monitoring. It was said that this procedure had been in place for many years and was tried and tested. A Regulation 28 report is being sent to Durham Constabulary and a copy provided to the local authority herewith and the evidence indicates that a better collective sharing of information between the two organisations may well be of benefit together with a review of the County Council's own practices and procedures to ensure that a timely and proportionate response to potentially dangerous road conditions can be delivered to promote the safety of all road users. The Highways Manager indicated that with the information that the Duty Manager had following receipt of the 6.00 a.m. weather report his decision not to deploy gritting/salting vehicles was a reasonable one but that with the benefit of hindsight knowing what happened with regard to ambient temperature conditions and incidents around the County on the road network this decision was regrettable. I confirmed that it was not my intention to blame or be seen to blame any individual for the death in this case but it was my statutory obligation to draw to the appropriate authorities attention relevant issues that might be appropriate to prevent future deaths. I also recognised that English weather can be unpredictable. ”

    Source location

    MELVIN BANDTOCK · 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

    Review information-sharing protocols with Durham Constabulary to identify improvements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Sharing of Information Following receipt of your letter we met with Durham Constabulary on 29th April 2014 to review existing information sharing protocols and to identify how these could be improved.”

    Source location

    2014-0147-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 April 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

    Existing communication mechanisms and information-sharing protocols are considered effective for managing highways through partnership working.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Sharing of Information Following receipt of your letter we met with Durham Constabulary on 29th April 2014 to review existing information sharing protocols and to identify how these could be improved.”

    Source location

    2014-0147-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 April 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 Constabulary disputes that road incident reporting was ad hoc or lacked supervisory oversight.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The matter of concern by the Coroner for the Constabulary was that the process for contacting Durham County Council was done by an individual call handler on an ad hoc basis with no monitoring or supervision. There was also a concern that there was no oversight that might lead a supervisory officer to conclude a potentially serious situation was developing on the County’s roads. This is not the case for both issues.”

    Source location

    2014-0147-Response-by-Durham-Constabulary
    Page 1 · response
    Published 3 April 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

    Established procedures, supervision and communication arrangements with the Council are considered robust and fit for purpose.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The dispatchers for that area would then deploy officers to the incident and contact Durham County Council as appropriate. There is also a dispatch pod (call sign LA) which deals with all highways issues for the County. Any incident which was affecting the road network would have a ‘highways’ tag placed on it and would be managed in conjunction with the area response. The LA dispatcher, having overall view of the County’s road network, would normally be the dispatcher who would contact the Council, should issues become apparent. This would be recorded on the incident log so the area dispatcher would know what had been done and what actions were being taken. The dispatch room is overseen by 2 supervisors and an inspector is on duty at all times to manage critical incidents and firearms deployments.”

    Source location

    2014-0147-Response-by-Durham-Constabulary
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 April 2014

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026