Recipient

Amey plc

First report 4 Apr 2017•Latest report 4 Apr 2017

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 0%
Concerns addressed: 0
Stated actions: 0

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 Amey plc linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

4 Apr2017
South Yorkshire (Western)
Concerns raised9
1. Failure to adjust the relevant safety assessment after serious injury information
2. Insufficient collation and sharing of potentially important incident information
3. Deficient national guidelines for incident information collation and sharing
1. Failure to accurately collect, share and categorise incident information
2. Failure to inform the relevant road-management function of a serious incident
3. Failure of location risk assessment to recognise risk and prioritise major works funding
4. Failure to maintain tree trimming sufficient to preserve road lighting
5. Failure to require sharing of damage-only incidents
6. Failure to properly identify incident locations in shared information
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
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. The report was sent to Amey plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to adjust the relevant safety assessment after serious injury information
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. ”
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 Amey plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient collation and sharing of potentially important incident information
Wider context from the report
“a) The evidence showed that there was insufficient system for the collation and sharing of information to assure that each of the authorities was aware of potentially important incidents. If national guidelines were being followed, as was stated, then the evidence suggests that those guidelines are themselves deficient. ”
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 Amey plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Deficient national guidelines for incident information collation and sharing
Wider context from the report
“a) The evidence showed that there was insufficient system for the collation and sharing of information to assure that each of the authorities was aware of potentially important incidents. If national guidelines were being followed, as was stated, then the evidence suggests that those guidelines are themselves deficient. ”
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 Amey plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to accurately collect, share and categorise incident information
Wider context from the report
“c) Further, the system did not apparently require ‘damage only’ incidents to be shared. It is appreciated that the sharing of minor incidents could easily become burdensome but the case of ████████ (August 2015) which was recorded as ‘damage only’ was actually a serious matter indicating that greater care is needed in the collection/sharing of information and subsequent categorisation. ”
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 Amey plc; that does not assign responsibility.
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. ”
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 Amey plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of location risk assessment to recognise risk and prioritise major works funding
Wider context from the report
“e) The risk assessment of this location was also of concern to the inquest, both in respect of prioritisation of funding for major work and in terms of the recognition of the degree of risk. This was a location where traffic might be expected to be travelling comparatively quickly with the low hazard of trees immediately adjoining the carriageway. The emergence of a propensity to flood was a most important addition to the risk calculation. ”
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 Amey plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to maintain tree trimming sufficient to preserve road lighting
Wider context from the report
“g) Witnesses reported the street lighting as ‘adequate’ and a site inspection did not suggest otherwise. However, the growth of trees and the development of leaves in Spring and Summer will inevitably reduce the lighting available on the road unless proper (and probably substantial) trimming takes place. The court was told that this is a recognised and regular maintenance issue but a concern would arise if this was reduced for any reason such as future budgetary constraints. ”
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 Amey plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to require sharing of damage-only incidents
Wider context from the report
“c) Further, the system did not apparently require ‘damage only’ incidents to be shared. It is appreciated that the sharing of minor incidents could easily become burdensome but the case of ████████ (August 2015) which was recorded as ‘damage only’ was actually a serious matter indicating that greater care is needed in the collection/sharing of information and subsequent categorisation. ”
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 Amey plc; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to properly identify incident locations in shared information
Wider context from the report
“b) In particular, such sharing of information as there was did not always fully or even properly identify the location concerned. The inquest showed that it was not difficult to identify that a number of incidents had occurred in the same place prior to the fatal collision. ”
Open source report

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised9

Failure to adjust the relevant safety assessment after serious injury information

Insufficient collation and sharing of potentially important incident information

Deficient national guidelines for incident information collation and sharing

Failure to accurately collect, share and categorise incident information

Failure to inform the relevant road-management function of a serious incident

Failure of location risk assessment to recognise risk and prioritise major works funding

Failure to maintain tree trimming sufficient to preserve road lighting

Failure to require sharing of damage-only incidents

Failure to properly identify incident locations in shared information