Recipient

B & D Civil Engineers Ltd

Pin Request correction

First report 17 Apr 2018•Latest report 17 Apr 2018

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
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

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.

100%published responses found
1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from B & D Civil Engineers Ltd linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Bedfordshire and Luton

    AI-generated summary

    Matthew James WILMOT · 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

    Matthew James WILMOT went out with friends to watch the FA Cup Final and was dropped off near his home at 00.45 hours on 28 May 2017. At 07:14, he was found upside down in an excavated hole on a closed path. The principal concern was that the risk assessment did not give enough consideration to the different risks of a unique route, where pedestrians may be more likely to use the shortest path despite barriers and closure signs.

    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 B & D Civil Engineers Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient consideration of unique-route risks in path risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “The accident happened on a path which had been excavated to find a stop cock. The excavation had been abandoned as a Deep Excavation Team was required. The path was closed by placing a sign at each end of the path stating that the path was closed. The hole and spoil were fenced off by using a metal railed fence which was alongside the path and 4 plastic yellow barriers which were secured to the metal fence. A risk assessment had taken place. The evidence was that the risk assessment was in line with the Red Book and Industry Standards. The Red Book encourages a risk assessment based on the locality, footfall, etcetera. My concern is that not enough consideration was given to the nature of the path. To all intents and purposes there are two types of paths. The most common is the path that runs parallel to a highway. If that path is closed, the pedestrian can be guided around the excavation or told to cross the road. It is unlikely that the pedestrian would walk through a barriered area in such circumstances as that would be slower than walking around it. The second type of path is one that is unique in its journey from A to B, ie there is no road to the side. This particular path lead from the road to a row of houses, which were not accessible by road. The alternative route (which was not signposted) was 150 metres away, meaning a diversion of about 300 metres. The path was not located in an area of risk. However, my concern is that a route that is unique is always at risk as pedestrians will want to travel the shortest route. This is backed up by the evidence in the Inquest which recorded 9 pedestrians (including the deceased) travelling through the closed path in the 7 hours before the deceased was found. The excavators took photographs of the site just before they left it. Looking at those photographs, I would have risked walking down the closed path. My concern is that there is not enough emphasis within the risk assessment process that a route that is unique has different risks to a path that is parallel. ”
    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 B & D Civil Engineers Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Pedestrian use of uniquely routed closed paths

    Wider context from the report

    “The accident happened on a path which had been excavated to find a stop cock. The excavation had been abandoned as a Deep Excavation Team was required. The path was closed by placing a sign at each end of the path stating that the path was closed. The hole and spoil were fenced off by using a metal railed fence which was alongside the path and 4 plastic yellow barriers which were secured to the metal fence. A risk assessment had taken place. The evidence was that the risk assessment was in line with the Red Book and Industry Standards. The Red Book encourages a risk assessment based on the locality, footfall, etcetera. My concern is that not enough consideration was given to the nature of the path. To all intents and purposes there are two types of paths. The most common is the path that runs parallel to a highway. If that path is closed, the pedestrian can be guided around the excavation or told to cross the road. It is unlikely that the pedestrian would walk through a barriered area in such circumstances as that would be slower than walking around it. The second type of path is one that is unique in its journey from A to B, ie there is no road to the side. This particular path lead from the road to a row of houses, which were not accessible by road. The alternative route (which was not signposted) was 150 metres away, meaning a diversion of about 300 metres. The path was not located in an area of risk. However, my concern is that a route that is unique is always at risk as pedestrians will want to travel the shortest route. This is backed up by the evidence in the Inquest which recorded 9 pedestrians (including the deceased) travelling through the closed path in the 7 hours before the deceased was found. The excavators took photographs of the site just before they left it. Looking at those photographs, I would have risked walking down the closed path. My concern is that there is not enough emphasis within the risk assessment process that a route that is unique has different risks to a path that is parallel. ”
    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

    The relevant risk assessment complied with the Red Book and industry standards, and the path was not located in an area of risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We note the concern is that there was not enough emphasis within the risk assessment process that a route that does not run parallel to a highway has different risks to a path that is parallel to a highway.”

    Source location

    2018-0107-Response-by-B-D-Civil-Engineering-Limited
    Page 1 · response
    Published 17 June 2018

    Open published response
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

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

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
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