Recipient

AGCO Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 31 Mar 2014•Latest report 31 Mar 2014

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from AGCO Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

    AI-generated summary

    Valerie Anne HANCOX · 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

    Valerie Anne HANCOX died from injuries sustained in a collision on the A5 at Burlington, Shifnal, Shropshire, on 14 September 2012. The collision occurred when a tractor and baler obstructed the oncoming carriageway during darkness. Concerns included the bale chute being left lowered, unmarked, and painted matt grey, making it difficult for approaching road users to see.

    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. The report was sent to AGCO Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to clearly mark bale chutes for visibility on public highways

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The bale chute, when on the public highway, should not be in its lowered position. However it appears to be standard farm practice to leave the bale chute down when moving from one field to another along or to cross a public highway. (2) The bale chute was just short of 2 metres in length and falls under the legislation that, when on roads, it should be clearly marked. If it were over 2 metres then it would have to be lit. (3) The bale chute had no markings and was painted matt grey. The manufacturers state in their handbook that the chute should be stored in the up position for travel on roads. This may explain why there is no marking but relies on the driver adhering to that instruction. (4) Given the potential for obstructing the highway, all the more so as the manufacturer's instructions appear to be not followed, bale chutes should be clearly marked so that anyone approaching side on, day or night, as the deceased’s husband was, should be able to see it. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to AGCO Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to keep bale chutes in the raised position during public-road travel

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The bale chute, when on the public highway, should not be in its lowered position. However it appears to be standard farm practice to leave the bale chute down when moving from one field to another along or to cross a public highway. (2) The bale chute was just short of 2 metres in length and falls under the legislation that, when on roads, it should be clearly marked. If it were over 2 metres then it would have to be lit. (3) The bale chute had no markings and was painted matt grey. The manufacturers state in their handbook that the chute should be stored in the up position for travel on roads. This may explain why there is no marking but relies on the driver adhering to that instruction. (4) Given the potential for obstructing the highway, all the more so as the manufacturer's instructions appear to be not followed, bale chutes should be clearly marked so that anyone approaching side on, day or night, as the deceased’s husband was, should be able to see it. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026