Recipient

Boatfolk Marinas Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 9 Jan 2024•Latest report 9 Jan 2024

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
2

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
2stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Avon

    AI-generated summary

    Andrew James Rees · 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

    Andrew James Rees consumed very high levels of alcohol before walking home severely intoxicated alongside Portishead Marina, where his body was later retrieved. He died due to immersion in water; concerns included a broken rescue chain that visual inspections had not identified and the absence of an apparent formal assessment of changes in use relevant to the marina risk assessment.

    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 Boatfolk Marinas Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficiency of visual inspection for identifying deteriorating rescue chains

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Boatfolk Marinas Ltd only In evidence it was identified that, in the vicinity of where the deceased was retrieved from the water, the rescue chain on the wall of the marina was broken and that the system of visual inspection in place for Boatfolk Marinas Ltd had not identified this. Whilst a monthly, documented visual inspection has been introduced it is a concern that visual inspection alone may be insufficient to identify the risk of a deteriorating chain. ”
    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 Boatfolk Marinas Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of formal assessment of changes in use triggering Port Marine Risk Assessment review

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) North Somerset Council only During the course of evidence one of the triggers to generate a review of the Port Marine, Portishead Risk Assessment by North Somerset Council was stated to be a significant change of use but no formal assessment or measure of whether a change of use (e.g. increase in amount or type of footfall/increased cyclists etc.) had taken place was apparent. ”
    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

    Increase visual chain inspections from monthly to weekly and record them in the inspection management system.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have increased the frequency of our visual inspection of the chains from monthly to weekly and have added a further physical 'pull' test that will take place on each chain on a monthly basis. As with all our inspections, both inspections will be recorded on our inspection management system.”

    Source location

    Response from Boatfolk
    Page 1 · response
    Published 19 January 2024

    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

    Introduce monthly physical pull tests for each chain and record them in the inspection management system.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have increased the frequency of our visual inspection of the chains from monthly to weekly and have added a further physical 'pull' test that will take place on each chain on a monthly basis. As with all our inspections, both inspections will be recorded on our inspection management system.”

    Source location

    Response from Boatfolk
    Page 1 · response
    Published 19 January 2024

    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