Recipient

Antonette Wilson

Pin Request correction

First report 9 Apr 2019•Latest report 9 Apr 2019

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

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

  1. Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

    AI-generated summary

    Freda Odette Mason · 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

    Freda Odette Mason, who had underlying conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoporosis and frailty fractures, fell through a bus shelter panel that was missing and sustained multiple rib fractures. She died in hospital three days later; the substantive concern was that the local authority used a reactive system for identifying bus shelter defects, without routine inspections or a requirement for users to report problems.

    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 Antonette Wilson; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to proactively identify problems requiring repair in bus shelters

    Wider context from the report

    “LCC has a duty to maintain bus shelters within its area, and does so using a process whereby complaints are made to LCC by third parties – members of the public, councillors, employees of LCC and of bus companies – and LCC assesses the complaint and responds, effecting repairs where necessary. This is best described as a reactive process; and LCC does not operate an inspection system where it views the bus shelters. This means that unless a third party notifies LCC of a problem, it has no knowledge of it and cannot respond/repair. In my opinion a more pro-active system of anticipating necessary repairs could prevent future deaths; and LCC has the power to take further additional steps to ensure that problems requiring repair are brought to its attention immediately – whether by implementing a regime of inspection or by ensuring that those who use/visit the shelters [including bus drivers and inspectors] are required [or encouraged, where LCC does not have the authority to require it] to notify LCC of any problem which needs attention. ”
    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