Brake

Private and voluntary organisations · Registered charity

Request correction

First report 8 Dec 2025•Latest report 8 Dec 2025

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: 0%
Concerns addressed: 0
Stated actions: 0

Concerns and recipient responses

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

8 Dec2025
Coventry and Warwickshire
Concerns raised19
1. Failure to assess new drivers’ understanding of passenger effects on braking, stability and handling
2. Failure of licensing arrangements to address combined inexperience, peer presence and full vehicle loading
3. Lack of a coordinated cross-sector approach to early indications of unsafe behaviour
1. Unequal behavioural oversight of named drivers with similar early-stage risk profiles
2. Failure of the standard driving test to require experience on challenging rural roads
3. Inconsistent incorporation of safety considerations into young-driver insurance products
4. Unclear detection and review of dangerous-driving content uploaded by minors
5. Lack of safeguarding processes to identify repeated unsafe conduct among young users
6. Uncertainty about wider algorithmic dissemination of dangerous-driving content
7. Lack of a consistent method to identify concealed higher-than-expected use by young named drivers
8. Insufficient understanding of peer influence, vehicle loading and rural road hazards
9. Unclear insurer processes for collecting, interpreting and acting on telematics data
10. Difficulty identifying true vehicle use by young named drivers
11. Peer sharing of high-risk driving normalising and reinforcing risk-taking
12. Failure of test requirements to assess passenger and load-related vehicle dynamics
13. Unclear communication of telematics use and safety implications to young drivers and families
14. Failure of qualification competencies to cover early independent-driving conditions
15. Failure of licensing arrangements to provide structured progression aligned to early post-test risk
16. Lack of a uniform approach to applying telematics
No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Harry Joseph Purcell and Matilda (Tilly) Grace Seccombe · 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

Harry Joseph Purcell and Matilda (Tilly) Grace Seccombe sustained fatal injuries in a single-vehicle collision on 21 April 2023, when a recently qualified 17-year-old driver travelled at excessive speed on a rural road and lost control. The report raised concerns about the combined risks of driver inexperience, peer passengers, vehicle loading and rural-road conditions, as well as issues concerning driver licensing, insurance oversight, unsafe-driving content shared on Snapchat and the lack of coordinated responses to unsafe behaviour.

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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to assess new drivers’ understanding of passenger effects on braking, stability and handling
Wider context from the report
“2. New drivers are not required to demonstrate an understanding of how passengers affect braking, stability and handling. The standard driving test does not require experience on rural roads with tight bends, undulations or variable grip. Given that collision risk is highest in the early post-test period, there is a concern as to whether current licensing arrangements adequately reflect the conditions young drivers commonly face or include a structured progression stage aligned to this risk. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of licensing arrangements to address combined inexperience, peer presence and full vehicle loading
Wider context from the report
“1. The inquest noted that newly qualified drivers may carry multiple peer-age passengers immediately after passing their test. This case suggests that inexperience, peer presence and full vehicle loading can combine to elevate risk, and it is unclear how current licensing arrangements address these combined factors. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a coordinated cross-sector approach to early indications of unsafe behaviour
Wider context from the report
“10. There does not appear to be a coordinated approach linking driver training bodies, insurers, social media platforms and road-safety organisations in identifying or responding to early indications of unsafe behaviour among newly qualified drivers. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unequal behavioural oversight of named drivers with similar early-stage risk profiles
Wider context from the report
“4. Evidence was heard about the practice of “fronting.” Although it did not apply in this case, it illustrates difficulties insurers may face in identifying the true pattern of vehicle use when young drivers are insured as named drivers. Named drivers may not be subject to telematics monitoring, which can result in differing levels of behavioural oversight for drivers with similar early-stage risk profiles. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of the standard driving test to require experience on challenging rural roads
Wider context from the report
“2. New drivers are not required to demonstrate an understanding of how passengers affect braking, stability and handling. The standard driving test does not require experience on rural roads with tight bends, undulations or variable grip. Given that collision risk is highest in the early post-test period, there is a concern as to whether current licensing arrangements adequately reflect the conditions young drivers commonly face or include a structured progression stage aligned to this risk. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inconsistent incorporation of safety considerations into young-driver insurance products
Wider context from the report
“5. While telematics devices can monitor driving behaviour, it is unclear how insurers collect, interpret or act upon such data, or how consistently safety considerations are incorporated into insurance products designed for young drivers. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unclear detection and review of dangerous-driving content uploaded by minors
Wider context from the report
“7. The inquest heard that unsafe driving behaviour was recorded and shared privately on Snapchat prior to the collision. It received no information on whether Snapchat is able to detect or review content depicting dangerous driving, including where uploaded by minors. It also remains unknown whether any such material was shared via public features, such as Spotlight or Public Stories, or whether algorithmic systems could have disseminated it more widely. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of safeguarding processes to identify repeated unsafe conduct among young users
Wider context from the report
“8. The filming and sharing of high-risk driving among peers, apparently treated as entertainment, raised concern that such use may normalise, encourage or reinforce risk-taking behaviour. There is no publicly available information on whether Snapchat has considered these behavioural risks or has safeguarding processes capable of identifying repeated patterns of unsafe conduct among young users. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Uncertainty about wider algorithmic dissemination of dangerous-driving content
Wider context from the report
“7. The inquest heard that unsafe driving behaviour was recorded and shared privately on Snapchat prior to the collision. It received no information on whether Snapchat is able to detect or review content depicting dangerous driving, including where uploaded by minors. It also remains unknown whether any such material was shared via public features, such as Spotlight or Public Stories, or whether algorithmic systems could have disseminated it more widely. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a consistent method to identify concealed higher-than-expected use by young named drivers
Wider context from the report
“6. Industry practice does not appear to include a consistent method for identifying when a named driver arrangement may conceal higher-than-expected use by a young driver, with implications for risk assessment and safety. There is also no uniform approach to how telematics is applied or the need for its use communicated to young drivers. The inquest noted uncertainty about how clearly insurers and brokers explain the safety-related aspects of telematics to young drivers or their families, which may influence decisions made when arranging insurance. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient understanding of peer influence, vehicle loading and rural road hazards
Wider context from the report
“9. The circumstances of this case highlight the continued significance of peer influence, vehicle loading and rural road hazards for young drivers. It is unclear how well these risks are understood by young people, parents (particularly those organising insurance cover), or schools. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unclear insurer processes for collecting, interpreting and acting on telematics data
Wider context from the report
“5. While telematics devices can monitor driving behaviour, it is unclear how insurers collect, interpret or act upon such data, or how consistently safety considerations are incorporated into insurance products designed for young drivers. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Difficulty identifying true vehicle use by young named drivers
Wider context from the report
“4. Evidence was heard about the practice of “fronting.” Although it did not apply in this case, it illustrates difficulties insurers may face in identifying the true pattern of vehicle use when young drivers are insured as named drivers. Named drivers may not be subject to telematics monitoring, which can result in differing levels of behavioural oversight for drivers with similar early-stage risk profiles. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Peer sharing of high-risk driving normalising and reinforcing risk-taking
Wider context from the report
“8. The filming and sharing of high-risk driving among peers, apparently treated as entertainment, raised concern that such use may normalise, encourage or reinforce risk-taking behaviour. There is no publicly available information on whether Snapchat has considered these behavioural risks or has safeguarding processes capable of identifying repeated patterns of unsafe conduct among young users. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of test requirements to assess passenger and load-related vehicle dynamics
Wider context from the report
“3. The inquest heard that newly qualified drivers may have limited experience of rural roads, vehicles under load or situations that significantly affect handling. Test requirements do not involve passengers or load-related vehicle dynamics, raising concern about whether the competencies assessed at qualification correspond to those required during the early stages of independent driving. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unclear communication of telematics use and safety implications to young drivers and families
Wider context from the report
“6. Industry practice does not appear to include a consistent method for identifying when a named driver arrangement may conceal higher-than-expected use by a young driver, with implications for risk assessment and safety. There is also no uniform approach to how telematics is applied or the need for its use communicated to young drivers. The inquest noted uncertainty about how clearly insurers and brokers explain the safety-related aspects of telematics to young drivers or their families, which may influence decisions made when arranging insurance. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of qualification competencies to cover early independent-driving conditions
Wider context from the report
“3. The inquest heard that newly qualified drivers may have limited experience of rural roads, vehicles under load or situations that significantly affect handling. Test requirements do not involve passengers or load-related vehicle dynamics, raising concern about whether the competencies assessed at qualification correspond to those required during the early stages of independent driving. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of licensing arrangements to provide structured progression aligned to early post-test risk
Wider context from the report
“2. New drivers are not required to demonstrate an understanding of how passengers affect braking, stability and handling. The standard driving test does not require experience on rural roads with tight bends, undulations or variable grip. Given that collision risk is highest in the early post-test period, there is a concern as to whether current licensing arrangements adequately reflect the conditions young drivers commonly face or include a structured progression stage aligned to this risk. ”
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 Brake; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a uniform approach to applying telematics
Wider context from the report
“6. Industry practice does not appear to include a consistent method for identifying when a named driver arrangement may conceal higher-than-expected use by a young driver, with implications for risk assessment and safety. There is also no uniform approach to how telematics is applied or the need for its use communicated to young drivers. The inquest noted uncertainty about how clearly insurers and brokers explain the safety-related aspects of telematics to young drivers or their families, which may influence decisions made when arranging insurance. ”
Open source report

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 raised19

Failure to assess new drivers’ understanding of passenger effects on braking, stability and handling

Failure of licensing arrangements to address combined inexperience, peer presence and full vehicle loading

Lack of a coordinated cross-sector approach to early indications of unsafe behaviour

Unequal behavioural oversight of named drivers with similar early-stage risk profiles

Failure of the standard driving test to require experience on challenging rural roads

Inconsistent incorporation of safety considerations into young-driver insurance products

Unclear detection and review of dangerous-driving content uploaded by minors

Lack of safeguarding processes to identify repeated unsafe conduct among young users

Uncertainty about wider algorithmic dissemination of dangerous-driving content

Lack of a consistent method to identify concealed higher-than-expected use by young named drivers

Insufficient understanding of peer influence, vehicle loading and rural road hazards

Unclear insurer processes for collecting, interpreting and acting on telematics data

Difficulty identifying true vehicle use by young named drivers

Peer sharing of high-risk driving normalising and reinforcing risk-taking

Failure of test requirements to assess passenger and load-related vehicle dynamics

Unclear communication of telematics use and safety implications to young drivers and families

Failure of qualification competencies to cover early independent-driving conditions

Failure of licensing arrangements to provide structured progression aligned to early post-test risk

Lack of a uniform approach to applying telematics