Recipient

Bath and North East Somerset Council

Pin Request correction

First report 20 Nov 2017•Latest report 23 Nov 2017

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Local government · English unitary authority. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
2

Naming this recipient

Published responses
50%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
4

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.

50%published responses found
4stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Bath and North East Somerset Council linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Avon

    AI-generated summary

    Jonathan Philip Armstrong SHAW · 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

    Jonathan Philip Armstrong Shaw died at the scene from injuries after his Mini crossed into the opposite carriageway and collided with another vehicle on a bend. The report raised concerns about previous incidents at the same location and noted that proposed speed-reduction signs and road markings had not been implemented by the day before the inquest.

    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 Bath and North East Somerset Council; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to implement maximum-speed road signs for the bend

    Wider context from the report

    “At the inquest ████████ from the Collision Investigation Unit gave evidence. He said that he had been made aware of a couple of incidents at the same location previously. I was also made aware by the family at the inquest of at least 3 or 4 incidents at this same location. ████████ confirmed that he spoke with the Highways Department at Bath and North East Somerset regarding the location of the incident and his findings. He indicated that it was your intention to highlight the need to reduce speed for the bend by adding road signs with a suggestion of a maximum speed for the bend. In addition that you were going to add “slow” painted markings on both approaches to the location of this tragic incident. ████████ confirmed that the day before the inquest he had travelled the road in question and that the changes had not been carried out. ”
    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 Bath and North East Somerset Council; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to implement slow painted markings on both approaches to the bend

    Wider context from the report

    “At the inquest ████████ from the Collision Investigation Unit gave evidence. He said that he had been made aware of a couple of incidents at the same location previously. I was also made aware by the family at the inquest of at least 3 or 4 incidents at this same location. ████████ confirmed that he spoke with the Highways Department at Bath and North East Somerset regarding the location of the incident and his findings. He indicated that it was your intention to highlight the need to reduce speed for the bend by adding road signs with a suggestion of a maximum speed for the bend. In addition that you were going to add “slow” painted markings on both approaches to the location of this tragic incident. ████████ confirmed that the day before the inquest he had travelled the road in question and that the changes had not been carried out. ”
    Open source report

  2. Avon

    AI-generated summary

    Terence DAVIES · 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

    Terence DAVIES fell from his mobility scooter while travelling along a canal path, suffered a head injury and later died in hospital. The report identified an extant dangerous informal pathway used by pedestrians and cyclists to access or leave the tow path, potentially placing users in danger.

    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 Bath and North East Somerset Council; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Extant dangerous informal pathway used by pedestrians and cyclists to access or egress the tow path

    Wider context from the report

    “The dangerous “informal” pathway seen in attached photo and plan is extant. It is used by pedestrians and cyclists alike who may be in danger by using it to access or egress the tow path ”
    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

50%
50%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
75%25%
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