Biffa Waste Services Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company

Request correction

First report 1 Apr 2022•Latest report 1 Apr 2022

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 5
Stated actions: 8

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Biffa Waste Services Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

1 Apr2022
Suffolk
Concerns raised5
1. Failure of bin locks to prevent individuals entering bins
2. Lack of automated recognition of unusually heavy bins
3. Failure to provide and safety-check equipment for thorough and safe bin searches
1. Failure of lorry viewing apertures to provide usable hopper visibility
2. Failure of compaction processes to allow hopper inspection before compaction
Actions described in response 5
1. Action
  Continue discussions with other report recipients about bin design, locking, lifting and weighing systems.
2. Action
  Regularly review toolbox talks and other training on safely checking bins.
3. Action
  Review operating instructions to clarify viewing-window use and acknowledge when hopper checks may not be possible on some vehicle configurations.
1. Action
  Continue working with equipment designers and suppliers to explore technology improvements that could reduce risks during bin emptying.
2. Action
  Remind customers to secure bins and, where feasible, store them in secure locations.
Respondent positions 5
1. Position
  Vehicle windows are considered adequate for their designed purpose of viewing container discharge relative to the compaction mechanism.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
1. Position
  Historical bin-weight recognition is not feasible in the near term because it requires significant redesign of weighing and data systems.
  Unable to act
2. Position
  Existing locking mechanisms are considered effective when used and sufficient to secure waste and prevent unauthorised access.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
3. Position
  Checking the vehicle hopper before compaction may not be possible on some collection vehicle configurations.
  Unable to act
4. Position
  Operatives cannot always search the entire contents of a bin safely, so searches are typically limited to the top layer.
  Unable to act
AI-generated summary

Corrie McKeague · 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

Corrie McKeague disappeared in Bury St Edmunds on 24 September 2016 after entering a commercial waste-bin area, and was later determined to have died in the back of a refuse lorry. The inquest identified concerns including ineffective bin locks and bin searches, lack of safe search equipment for drivers, and poor visibility through the lorry’s viewing window.

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 Biffa Waste Services Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of bin locks to prevent individuals entering bins
Wider context from the report
“1. Ineffective bin locks. The court heard that bin locks were designed to keep waste within the bin, keep inclement weather out, but were not designed to keep individuals out. The locks were described as not robust, and a determined or strong individual would get in. Due to their design the locks were also frequently broken. Stronger locks (such as snap locks) had been considered, but due to the risk of entombing (an individual inadvertently becoming locked inside a bin) stronger locks had been discounted. However, the choir heard there are currently no stronger bin locks available which would allow an individual to open them from the inside should they become entombed in a bin. There were 740 reported incidents of people in bins over a 6-year period (i.e. 10 per week), which are likely to be reduced if stronger locks are fitted. ”
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 Biffa Waste Services Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of automated recognition of unusually heavy bins
Wider context from the report
“2. Ineffective search of the bin. Despite the lifting mechanism recording the weight of each bin every time it is lifted, there is no automated/digital system to recognise when a bin is significantly heavier than it usually is. In this case the usual weight in the bin (based on an average of 13 previous collections) was approximately 15kgs. The bin weight recorded by the lifting mechanism on the dust cart was 116kgs. Such a significant difference in weight of a particular bin, is something that should be recognisable and should warrant a further check being completed. ”
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 Biffa Waste Services Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide and safety-check equipment for thorough and safe bin searches
Wider context from the report
“3. Any driver not having the means to search the bin thoroughly or safely. The court heard that drivers are now told to use a ‘push stick’ to allow a more thorough search of the contents of a bin. This instruction was not in place at the time of this incident. However, it was not clear from the evidence if the push stick is an identifiable piece of equipment on every vehicle, or if it is deemed as a piece of safety equipment, and therefore included in the daily safety checks of the vehicle. ”
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 Biffa Waste Services Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of lorry viewing apertures to provide usable hopper visibility
Wider context from the report
“4. Poor visibility through the Perspex viewing window on the lorry In relation to the poor visibility through the Perspex viewing aperture/window on the lorry two factors were identified: Firstly, it is physically impossible to undertake a check of the hopper mechanism on the Biffa lorry as the viewing aperture window is too high for this to be achieved by an average height driver. Secondly, on the six-year-old vehicle in question the Perspex had become opaque. A Detective Constable who had watched the lifting process to provide evidence of its operation for the court, described the driver as standing on tiptoes to try a check the vehicle hopper, whilst peering around the wing of the lifting mechanism. When asked specifically about the viewing window the officer said it was too high to see through and opaque. The officer told the court the viewing aperture was ‘totally useless’ as a means of checking what was being loaded into the hopper. Whilst viewing the hopper is impossible on the current vehicle, it renders the instruction for drivers to view the hopper prior to compaction (contained in the Biffa Operating Instructions for Trade Waste Vehicles) impossible to achieve. In addition, the automatic nature of the compaction process, also makes adherence to the Operating Instructions impossible on some vehicles, as compaction starts immediately the bin is tipped. ”
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 Biffa Waste Services Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of compaction processes to allow hopper inspection before compaction
Wider context from the report
“4. Poor visibility through the Perspex viewing window on the lorry In relation to the poor visibility through the Perspex viewing aperture/window on the lorry two factors were identified: Firstly, it is physically impossible to undertake a check of the hopper mechanism on the Biffa lorry as the viewing aperture window is too high for this to be achieved by an average height driver. Secondly, on the six-year-old vehicle in question the Perspex had become opaque. A Detective Constable who had watched the lifting process to provide evidence of its operation for the court, described the driver as standing on tiptoes to try a check the vehicle hopper, whilst peering around the wing of the lifting mechanism. When asked specifically about the viewing window the officer said it was too high to see through and opaque. The officer told the court the viewing aperture was ‘totally useless’ as a means of checking what was being loaded into the hopper. Whilst viewing the hopper is impossible on the current vehicle, it renders the instruction for drivers to view the hopper prior to compaction (contained in the Biffa Operating Instructions for Trade Waste Vehicles) impossible to achieve. In addition, the automatic nature of the compaction process, also makes adherence to the Operating Instructions impossible on some vehicles, as compaction starts immediately the bin is tipped. ”
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Continue discussions with other report recipients about bin design, locking, lifting and weighing systems.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Since your Report was issued, we have engaged with some of the other recipients of the Report to discuss bin design and locking, bin lifting and weighing systems. These discussions are ongoing.”

Source location
Response from Biffa
Page 1 · response
Published 26 April 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Regularly review toolbox talks and other training on safely checking bins.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In our experience it is not always possible for our operatives to search the entire contents of a bin safely. The search of bins is typically limited to the top layer of the materials within a bin and this search may include the use of a push stick. As part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we regularly review our toolbox talks and any other training on the requirements for checking bins (which may include the use of a push stick where this is appropriate to the size of bin to be checked). Any updates and changes to these would typically be communicated by internal awareness campaigns for our operatives on the risks to people in and around bins and our safety procedures for checking bins to prevent injury.”

Source location
Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Review operating instructions to clarify viewing-window use and acknowledge when hopper checks may not be possible on some vehicle configurations.

Verbatim wording from the response
“On the vehicle involved, the side windows fitted are to allow operator vision of the discharge of the container contents relative to the compaction mechanism i.e. the point at which container/mechanism physically approach one another. The windows have therefore been positioned to facilitate viewing of this operation, i.e. at eye line and/or above, rather than to check the contents of the vehicle hopper. We note the comments in your report, and we are reviewing our operating instructions to ensure there is clarity on how and when the viewing window is to be used, if one is present.”

Source location
Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Continue working with equipment designers and suppliers to explore technology improvements that could reduce risks during bin emptying.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The existing bin weighing systems fitted to our vehicles record the weight of the bin after the emptying cycle has been completed. This involves equipment recording the weight of the bin before and after it is emptied to calculate the net weight of its contents. We have engaged with the designer of our bin weighing systems to establish the feasibility of using historical bin weight data to recognize if a bin about to be emptied is outside the usual range of historical weights recorded. They have confirmed that the existing weighing system does not have this capability. Any technology solution to achieve this will require a significant redesign of the weighing system and Biffa’s systems that hold the historical weighing data.”

Source location
Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Remind customers to secure bins and, where feasible, store them in secure locations.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The effective use of any locking mechanism is reliant upon customers using the locks and not overfilling the bin so that the bin lid can be closed and the locks used effectively. We will be reminding our customers of the importance of bins being secured and, where feasible, being stored in a secure location.”

Source location
Response from Biffa
Page 1 · response
Published 26 April 2022
Open published response
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
Vehicle windows are considered adequate for their designed purpose of viewing container discharge relative to the compaction mechanism.

Verbatim wording from the response
“On the vehicle involved, the side windows fitted are to allow operator vision of the discharge of the container contents relative to the compaction mechanism i.e. the point at which container/mechanism physically approach one another. The windows have therefore been positioned to facilitate viewing of this operation, i.e. at eye line and/or above, rather than to check the contents of the vehicle hopper. We note the comments in your report, and we are reviewing our operating instructions to ensure there is clarity on how and when the viewing window is to be used, if one is present.”

Source location
Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022
Open published response
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
Historical bin-weight recognition is not feasible in the near term because it requires significant redesign of weighing and data systems.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The existing bin weighing systems fitted to our vehicles record the weight of the bin after the emptying cycle has been completed. This involves equipment recording the weight of the bin before and after it is emptied to calculate the net weight of its contents. We have engaged with the designer of our bin weighing systems to establish the feasibility of using historical bin weight data to recognize if a bin about to be emptied is outside the usual range of historical weights recorded. They have confirmed that the existing weighing system does not have this capability. Any technology solution to achieve this will require a significant redesign of the weighing system and Biffa’s systems that hold the historical weighing data.”

Source location
Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022
Open published response
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
Existing locking mechanisms are considered effective when used and sufficient to secure waste and prevent unauthorised access.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We believe the existing locking mechanisms are effective when used and fulfil their purpose of securing waste inside the bin and preventing unauthorised access. However, we have engaged with bin manufacturers on the locking options available and our understanding is that they are considering alternative design options available to secure containers. Whilst there are snap lock options available (being locks that ‘lock’ on closure of the bin lid and then require unlocking), as you heard during the Inquest, these do present an entombing risk for any person entering the bin. Options to overcome this risk are being explored by the manufacturers.”

Source location
Response from Biffa
Page 1 · response
Published 26 April 2022
Open published response
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
Checking the vehicle hopper before compaction may not be possible on some collection vehicle configurations.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Our operating instructions will be reviewed to reflect that checking the vehicle hopper prior to compaction may not be possible on some configurations of collection vehicle such as the one involved in this case.”

Source location
Response from Biffa
Page 3 · response
Published 26 April 2022
Open published response
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
Operatives cannot always search the entire contents of a bin safely, so searches are typically limited to the top layer.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In our experience it is not always possible for our operatives to search the entire contents of a bin safely. The search of bins is typically limited to the top layer of the materials within a bin and this search may include the use of a push stick. As part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we regularly review our toolbox talks and any other training on the requirements for checking bins (which may include the use of a push stick where this is appropriate to the size of bin to be checked). Any updates and changes to these would typically be communicated by internal awareness campaigns for our operatives on the risks to people in and around bins and our safety procedures for checking bins to prevent injury.”

Source location
Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022
Open published response

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 raised5

Failure of bin locks to prevent individuals entering bins

Lack of automated recognition of unusually heavy bins

Failure to provide and safety-check equipment for thorough and safe bin searches

Failure of lorry viewing apertures to provide usable hopper visibility

Failure of compaction processes to allow hopper inspection before compaction

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

Actions described in response 5

Respondent positions 5