Recipient

Coal Authority

First report 24 Jan 2024•Latest report 24 Jan 2024

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Executive non-departmental public body. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 0%
Concerns addressed: 0
Stated actions: 0

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 Coal Authority linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

24 Jan2024
South Wales Central
Concerns raised8
1. Lack of a specific water safety safety-equipment policy
2. Absence of signage warning of the dangers of deep and fast-flowing water
3. Failure to make public activity risk reports readily cross-referenced and accessible to safety inspectors
1. Failure to consider provision of equipment for rescuing members of the public in difficulty
2. Inadequate annual safety inspection content, format and decision-making criteria
3. Lack of a specific water safety risk-assessment policy
4. Failure to ensure completion of remedial works identified during safety inspections
5. Failure to provide inspectors with guidance for assessing safeguards against deep and fast-flowing water
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Christopher Kapessa · 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

Christopher Kapessa, aged 13, was intentionally pushed into the River Cynon at the Red Bridge on 1 July 2019, became submerged and could not be saved after resuscitation attempts. The report identified concerns about inadequate water-safety policies, unclear inspections and guidance, a lack of warning signage and rescue equipment, and remedial works that were not completed.

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 Coal Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a specific water safety safety-equipment policy
Wider context from the report
“(2) No specific water safety policy relating to risk assessment or the provision of safety equipment was in place, or is currently in place. ”
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 Coal Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Absence of signage warning of the dangers of deep and fast-flowing water
Wider context from the report
“(4) Inspectors were not provided with any guidance as to how to assess whether members of the public accessing the site should be safeguarded from the risks of deep and fast flowing water, and if so how. No signage was in place to warn of the specific dangers of deep and fast flowing water. No consideration was given as to whether equipment to assist in the rescue of members of the public who may have got into difficulty, such as throw lines, should be provided. ”
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 Coal Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to make public activity risk reports readily cross-referenced and accessible to safety inspectors
Wider context from the report
“(1) The Coal Authority was aware that members of the public used the site for purposes including recreational walking. The Court found that the site was known by children as a site from which to swim, but that this was unknown to the Coal Authority. Nevertheless, Coal Authority documentation was not easily cross referenced or accessible to inspectors to ensure that any reports that might be made with respect to activities by members of the public who might put themselves at risk were available to inspectors when conducting safety inspections. ”
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 Coal Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to consider provision of equipment for rescuing members of the public in difficulty
Wider context from the report
“(4) Inspectors were not provided with any guidance as to how to assess whether members of the public accessing the site should be safeguarded from the risks of deep and fast flowing water, and if so how. No signage was in place to warn of the specific dangers of deep and fast flowing water. No consideration was given as to whether equipment to assist in the rescue of members of the public who may have got into difficulty, such as throw lines, should be provided. ”
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 Coal Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate annual safety inspection content, format and decision-making criteria
Wider context from the report
“(3) The annual inspections conducted by the Coal Authority were limited in content, unclear in format and identified no clear criteria to be used for the basis of decision making. ”
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 Coal Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a specific water safety risk-assessment policy
Wider context from the report
“(2) No specific water safety policy relating to risk assessment or the provision of safety equipment was in place, or is currently in place. ”
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 Coal Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure completion of remedial works identified during safety inspections
Wider context from the report
“(5) Remedial work was identified to remedy aspects of the site which rendered it unsafe, but were not carried out. No system appeared to be in place to ensure that such works were carried out following inspection. ”
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 Coal Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide inspectors with guidance for assessing safeguards against deep and fast-flowing water
Wider context from the report
“(4) Inspectors were not provided with any guidance as to how to assess whether members of the public accessing the site should be safeguarded from the risks of deep and fast flowing water, and if so how. No signage was in place to warn of the specific dangers of deep and fast flowing water. No consideration was given as to whether equipment to assist in the rescue of members of the public who may have got into difficulty, such as throw lines, should be provided. ”
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 raised8

Lack of a specific water safety safety-equipment policy

Absence of signage warning of the dangers of deep and fast-flowing water

Failure to make public activity risk reports readily cross-referenced and accessible to safety inspectors

Failure to consider provision of equipment for rescuing members of the public in difficulty

Inadequate annual safety inspection content, format and decision-making criteria

Lack of a specific water safety risk-assessment policy

Failure to ensure completion of remedial works identified during safety inspections

Failure to provide inspectors with guidance for assessing safeguards against deep and fast-flowing water