Recipient

Backhouse Jones Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 8 Jul 2014•Latest report 8 Jul 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 Backhouse Jones Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Muriel Naylor · 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

    Muriel Naylor died after a bus made an emergency stop on 19 November 2011, causing her to be projected from a designated priority seat into the wheelchair/tip-up bay and sustain fatal spinal injuries. The principal concern was that the priority seat lacked a restraint or other safety measure to restrict passenger movement, despite priority seating being intended to protect vulnerable users.

    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 Backhouse Jones Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of restraint in priority seating

    Wider context from the report

    “IV. As standing passengers are carried on this vehicle, seat belts are not mandatory although this would not preclude the fitment of a seat belt as an option. However, a seat belt could only be fitted if there was sufficient anchorage and the seat itself would have to undergo a ‘pull’ test. The priority seat in question would not, it is believed, comply with the ‘pull’ test. V. Notwithstanding the fact that Mrs Naylor was a very fit and active 79 year old. She was propelled across a void of a 184cm before sustaining injuries which crushed her upper spinal cord causing immediate unconsciousness and paralysis. VI. Given that priority seating is intended to protect the most vulnerable users of the service, it is of significant concern that the risk is accentuated by the lack of any restraint. ”
    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