Recipient

DAF Trucks Limited

First report 17 Sep 2019•Latest report 17 Sep 2019

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
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 3
Stated actions: 2

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 DAF Trucks Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

17 Sep2019
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised4
1. Failure of HGV rear hazard warning lights to remain working and sufficiently conspicuous
2. Failure to train or instruct HGV drivers to report stranded vehicles to emergency services
3. Lack of an HGV warning device for alerting approaching motorists to a stranded vehicle
1. Lack of duplicate rear indicator and hazard warning lights on HGVs
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Issue a PDI safety kit containing two warning triangles with all new vehicles sold through the sales network.
  Stated completed
Respondent positions 4
1. Position
  Driver and employer training and safe working systems were considered their responsibility, so no further action was deemed necessary from the manufacturer.
  Redirects responsibility
1. Position
  Another organisation controlled completion approval and rear-lamp conspicuity, so the manufacturer considered no action necessary on that issue.
  Redirects responsibility
2. Position
  The supplied safety kit and operator responsibilities were considered sufficient, so no further action was deemed necessary regarding warning triangles.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
3. Position
  The original lighting system was replaced with alternative LED lamps, removing bulb monitoring, so the manufacturer considered no action necessary.
  Redirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Dr Jonathan Edward Ball · 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

On 24 November 2018, Dr Jonathan Edward Ball died after his Skoda collided with a stationary 32-ton HGV on the A647 Stanningley bypass near Pudsey, Leeds. The substantive concerns related to the absence of advance warning equipment and emergency-service notification for the stranded HGV, and the limited visibility or resilience of its rear hazard warning lights.

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 DAF Trucks Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of HGV rear hazard warning lights to remain working and sufficiently conspicuous
Wider context from the report
“(3) The evidence of the other motorists on the A647 at the material time indicated that the rear offside hazard warning light was hard to see (or thought not to be working) thus giving the impression that the HGV was indicating to turn left (and thereby potentially confusing approaching motorists). In such circumstances there was no added resilience to the lights displayed, such as would have been provided by having duplicate indicator/hazard lights on the rear corners of the HGV. Given the arduous work of such vehicles and the propensity for the light to become dirty at the end of a working day, concern was expressed at the Inquest as to the danger which might be created in the event (a) the HGV broke down in a hazardous location and (b) the rear lights were not working or insufficiently conspicuous. ”
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 DAF Trucks Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to train or instruct HGV drivers to report stranded vehicles to emergency services
Wider context from the report
“(2) The HGV driver had not been trained or instructed to contact the emergency services to report the foreseeable hazard created by his stranded HGV on a dual carriageway at night. The HGV was there for some 41 minutes before the fatal collision occurred (although the Inquest heard evidence there were several near misses before then). It was likely that when a mechanic did arrive at the scene the HGV would have been there for a further period before it was repaired or could have been towed to a safe location. In consequence, the police had no opportunity to guard the scene, position safety barrier or warning signs to alert approaching motorists of the hazard. ”
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 DAF Trucks Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of an HGV warning device for alerting approaching motorists to a stranded vehicle
Wider context from the report
“(1) The HGV was not equipped with a device (such as a warning triangle) which the driver could have positioned some way before his stranded vehicle to warn oncoming motorists of the hazard presented by a stranded 32 ton HGV blocking one lane of a dual carriageway in darkness. ”
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 DAF Trucks Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of duplicate rear indicator and hazard warning lights on HGVs
Wider context from the report
“(3) The evidence of the other motorists on the A647 at the material time indicated that the rear offside hazard warning light was hard to see (or thought not to be working) thus giving the impression that the HGV was indicating to turn left (and thereby potentially confusing approaching motorists). In such circumstances there was no added resilience to the lights displayed, such as would have been provided by having duplicate indicator/hazard lights on the rear corners of the HGV. Given the arduous work of such vehicles and the propensity for the light to become dirty at the end of a working day, concern was expressed at the Inquest as to the danger which might be created in the event (a) the HGV broke down in a hazardous location and (b) the rear lights were not working or insufficiently conspicuous. ”
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
Issue a PDI safety kit containing two warning triangles with all new vehicles sold through the sales network.

Verbatim wording from the response
“a. DAF Trucks Ltd issues to all new vehicles sold via the sales network a PDI safety kit. This Bagged kit (DAF part number 9507301) includes x2 Hazard Warning Triangles x3 Tachograph paper roll, x1 Hi- Viz vest and a pair of safety working gloves. A photo of this kit is shown in Appendix 1.”

Source location
2019-0507-Response-from-DAF-trucks-Ltd-Redacted-1
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020
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
Driver and employer training and safe working systems were considered their responsibility, so no further action was deemed necessary from the manufacturer.

Verbatim wording from the response
“a. DAF Trucks Ltd. provides to the DAF Sales Network, a driver training service which is offered to the original sales customer during the sales process. Since the introduction of Euro 4 in 2006 driver training has become a feature of sales transactions due to the complexity of modern vehicles. All DAF dealers, now have dedicated driver trainers available to teach the functions and features of the new vehicle. For retail customers, our DAF UK Sales Dealers offer discounted driver training incentives with a redeemable voucher scheme, this is to encourage all new vehicle owners and drivers to take advantage of the driver training at favourable costs to ensure all current vehicle features and OE vehicle operation are understood.”

Source location
2019-0507-Response-from-DAF-trucks-Ltd-Redacted-1
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020
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
Another organisation controlled completion approval and rear-lamp conspicuity, so the manufacturer considered no action necessary on that issue.

Verbatim wording from the response
“a. DAF Trucks supplies vehicles such as OG034509 FAD CF 370, from factory as a “Chassis Cab” only vehicle. The vehicle therefore is incomplete (No Body) at point of delivery, to the customers chosen Body Builder, in this case a company called “Thompsons of Blackburn”, at which point the “tipper” or “skip body” and its associated equipment, including the rear light arrangement, would have been permanently mounted to the new body and commissioned by Thompsons of Blackburn. The end choice of lamp arrangement and the conspicuousness of the rear lamps in the final phases of build for this vehicle, would have therefore been controlled by the completion of the build in accordance with Thompsons of Blackburn’s chosen Legislative Approval methods, before the vehicle was moved to the PDI dealer (Lancashire DAF in this case) prior to delivery to the original customer MV Commercials, Brownsburn Ind.”

Source location
2019-0507-Response-from-DAF-trucks-Ltd-Redacted-1
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 2020
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
The supplied safety kit and operator responsibilities were considered sufficient, so no further action was deemed necessary regarding warning triangles.

Verbatim wording from the response
“a. DAF Trucks Ltd issues to all new vehicles sold via the sales network a PDI safety kit. This Bagged kit (DAF part number 9507301) includes x2 Hazard Warning Triangles x3 Tachograph paper roll, x1 Hi- Viz vest and a pair of safety working gloves. A photo of this kit is shown in Appendix 1.”

Source location
2019-0507-Response-from-DAF-trucks-Ltd-Redacted-1
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2020
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
The original lighting system was replaced with alternative LED lamps, removing bulb monitoring, so the manufacturer considered no action necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response
“All DAF vehicles are supplied with rear light assemblies secured to transport bars and with regards to the case of OG034509 the vehicle was supplied with standard incandescent rear lamp cluster part number 1875581 (Right) and 1875580 (Left). These OE rear lamps comply with Regulation 48 of UNECE-R48 light signalling devices. These OE rear lamps work in conjunction with an electronic safety system of “bulb monitoring”. This bulb monitoring feature, advises the driver by an in cab display if any bulb of the vehicle lighting system fails during operation.”

Source location
2019-0507-Response-from-DAF-trucks-Ltd-Redacted-1
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 2020
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 raised4

Failure of HGV rear hazard warning lights to remain working and sufficiently conspicuous

Failure to train or instruct HGV drivers to report stranded vehicles to emergency services

Lack of an HGV warning device for alerting approaching motorists to a stranded vehicle

Lack of duplicate rear indicator and hazard warning lights on HGVs

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.1

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 4