12 Nov 2025 Christopher Graham Ayerst SAMPSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report Birmingham and Solihull
View report summary
Concerns raised 7 Absence of a national road safety strategy View source Insufficient awareness among medical professionals of guidance on notifying the DVLA View source Uncertainty about the effectiveness of mechanisms for doctors to report patients' health issues to the DVLA View source Failure of medical professionals to report patients' health issues to the DVLA View source Failure to ensure drivers understand how and when to notify the DVLA of medical conditions View source Failure of drivers to self-report medical conditions to the DVLA View source Lack of published statistical evidence on DVLA health-issue reporting mechanisms View source See 4 more concerns
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 Graham Ayerst SAMPSON · 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 Graham Ayerst Sampson was a front-seat passenger in a Mazda that was struck by a Mercedes travelling at speeds exceeding 100 mph after its driver suffered an unexpected medical event. Christopher sustained unsurvivable injuries and was declared deceased at the scene. The principal concern was the risk of future deaths arising from drivers failing to self-report medical conditions to the DVLA, and uncertainty about the effectiveness and awareness of medical professionals’ reporting guidance.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Absence of a national road safety strategy
Wider context from the report “5. Following scrutiny of those reports, it is apparent that the DVLA and Department of Transport previously called for evidence in 2023 seeking views on the current legislative basis for establishing whether a person was medically fit to drive. At that time, officials were considering what that evidence and considering policy options as part of the government’s road safety strategy which was being developed and the details would be provided, “in due course”.
6. Two years later from that call for evidence, and still no national strategy has been announced . I understand that in August 2025 His Majesty's Government announced that a new Road Safety Strategy would be published in the Autumn of 2025. However, we are now in the depths of November and there is no sign currently of any Road Safety Strategy being published .
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient awareness among medical professionals of guidance on notifying the DVLA
Wider context from the report “7. I am aware that the DVLA publishes guidance on GOV.UK called “Assessing fitness to drive: a guide for medical professionals” to support healthcare professionals (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessing-fitness-to-drive-a-guide-for-medical-professionals). What is unclear, however, is whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals, and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
8. I am also aware that The General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Optical Council (GOC) offer guidance about notifying DVLA when the person cannot or will not exercise their own legal duty to do so. Again, it is unclear whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals , and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Uncertainty about the effectiveness of mechanisms for doctors to report patients' health issues to the DVLA
Wider context from the report “7. I am aware that the DVLA publishes guidance on GOV.UK called “Assessing fitness to drive: a guide for medical professionals” to support healthcare professionals (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessing-fitness-to-drive-a-guide-for-medical-professionals). What is unclear, however, is whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals, and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
8. I am also aware that The General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Optical Council (GOC) offer guidance about notifying DVLA when the person cannot or will not exercise their own legal duty to do so. Again, it is unclear whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals, and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of medical professionals to report patients' health issues to the DVLA
Wider context from the report “9. Drivers may not self-report medical conditions due to a variety of reasons. This can be due to a lack of understanding, insight, or simply because someone has not explicitly told them what to do or how to do it. There are then those who are reckless and knowingly avoid notifying the DVLA of a health condition when explicitly told to do so - either through arrogance, pride or through fear of losing employment. The end result is the same: people are dying needlessly on our roads due to people who, legally, should not be on our roads.
10. There is a risk of future deaths occurring where drivers do not self-refer their conditions to the DVLA, or where medical professionals do not report those health issues to protect the wider public .
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure drivers understand how and when to notify the DVLA of medical conditions
Wider context from the report “9. Drivers may not self-report medical conditions due to a variety of reasons. This can be due to a lack of understanding, insight, or simply because someone has not explicitly told them what to do or how to do it . There are then those who are reckless and knowingly avoid notifying the DVLA of a health condition when explicitly told to do so - either through arrogance, pride or through fear of losing employment. The end result is the same: people are dying needlessly on our roads due to people who, legally, should not be on our roads.
10. There is a risk of future deaths occurring where drivers do not self-refer their conditions to the DVLA, or where medical professionals do not report those health issues to protect the wider public.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of drivers to self-report medical conditions to the DVLA
Wider context from the report “9. Drivers may not self-report medical conditions due to a variety of reasons. This can be due to a lack of understanding, insight, or simply because someone has not explicitly told them what to do or how to do it. There are then those who are reckless and knowingly avoid notifying the DVLA of a health condition when explicitly told to do so - either through arrogance, pride or through fear of losing employment. The end result is the same: people are dying needlessly on our roads due to people who, legally, should not be on our roads.
10. There is a risk of future deaths occurring where drivers do not self-refer their conditions to the DVLA , or where medical professionals do not report those health issues to protect the wider public.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of published statistical evidence on DVLA health-issue reporting mechanisms
Wider context from the report “7. I am aware that the DVLA publishes guidance on GOV.UK called “Assessing fitness to drive: a guide for medical professionals” to support healthcare professionals (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessing-fitness-to-drive-a-guide-for-medical-professionals). What is unclear, however, is whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals, and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
8. I am also aware that The General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Optical Council (GOC) offer guidance about notifying DVLA when the person cannot or will not exercise their own legal duty to do so. Again, it is unclear whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals, and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
” Open source report
Concerns raised 6 Failure of the online licence checker to reflect a driver’s authorised driving status View source Failure to ensure required medical information is received and accepted in the required format View source Failure to identify and respond appropriately to vulnerable licence applicants View source Unavailability of reliable telephone and caseworker contact during licence applications View source Delays in processing driving licence renewals View source Failure to provide timely explanations for licence delays and removal decisions View source See 3 more concerns
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
Kenton Clete BEASLEY · 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
Kenton Clete Beasley was found hanging at an address in Ashurst, Steyning on 19 May 2024 and was confirmed deceased at the scene; third-party involvement was ruled out. The report described delays and communication failures in the renewal of his HGV licence, which prevented him from securing professional employment and contributed to distress and deterioration in his mental health.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of the online licence checker to reflect a driver’s authorised driving status
Wider context from the report “In the period Sep 23-Mar 24, whilst verbally informed that he was able to drive under s.88 RTA 1988, the online checker was showing his licence to have expired , hence over 20 potential employers refused to hire him, notwithstanding his attempts to explain s.88.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure required medical information is received and accepted in the required format
Wider context from the report “There was a lengthy and unnecessarily protracted period (8 Sep 23 – 12 Mar 24) in which Mr Beasley was attempting to renew his licence, which meant he was unable to secure professional HGV driver employment.
The following individual events and consequent frustrations exacerbated Mr Beasley’s poor mental state:
• DVLA wrote to his GP on 11 October 2023 and the GP surgery responded with the information they believed was required on 18 October 2023.
• In a call from Mr Beasley to DVLA of 30 Nov 23 it was apparently confirmed that DVLA had all the necessary information and a ‘DVLA Doctor’ decision would be forthcoming soon.
• It then transpired that was not the case and more or different information was required. There was then a further delay in securing another GP appointment.
• Despite that second GP appointment being booked for 10 Jan 24, the DVLA questionnaire was never received by the GP.
• Despite a GP letter sent after that appointment confirming no concerns at Mr Beasley’s physical or mental health in terms of fitness to drive, this was rejected because it did not contain the information in questionnaire format.
• It appears to have taken the intervention of his then MP, Greg Clarke, to unlock the impasse.
• There was a delay in booking a further GP appointment in Feb 24.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to identify and respond appropriately to vulnerable licence applicants
Wider context from the report “He was frequently unable to get through via the telephone advice service. Mr Beasley had attempted telephone contact on multiple occasions, but calls went unanswered and unattended.
• Even though an individual medical caseworker was assigned, Mr Beasley’s experience was that contact was still difficult and sporadic and he was constantly chasing rather than being kept informed.
• On some occasions when he made telephone contact he was in tears of frustration but no vulnerable customer protocol appears to have been followed , nor was there any attempt to expedite his application or provide a fuller explanation as to the delay.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Unavailability of reliable telephone and caseworker contact during licence applications
Wider context from the report “He was frequently unable to get through via the telephone advice service. Mr Beasley had attempted telephone contact on multiple occasions, but calls went unanswered and unattended.
• Even though an individual medical caseworker was assigned, Mr Beasley’s experience was that contact was still difficult and sporadic and he was constantly chasing rather than being kept informed.
• On some occasions when he made telephone contact he was in tears of frustration but no vulnerable customer protocol appears to have been followed, nor was there any attempt to expedite his application or provide a fuller explanation as to the delay.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Delays in processing driving licence renewals
Wider context from the report “There was a lengthy and unnecessarily protracted period (8 Sep 23 – 12 Mar 24) in which Mr Beasley was attempting to renew his licence , which meant he was unable to secure professional HGV driver employment.
The following individual events and consequent frustrations exacerbated Mr Beasley’s poor mental state:
• DVLA wrote to his GP on 11 October 2023 and the GP surgery responded with the information they believed was required on 18 October 2023.
• In a call from Mr Beasley to DVLA of 30 Nov 23 it was apparently confirmed that DVLA had all the necessary information and a ‘DVLA Doctor’ decision would be forthcoming soon.
• It then transpired that was not the case and more or different information was required. There was then a further delay in securing another GP appointment.
• Despite that second GP appointment being booked for 10 Jan 24, the DVLA questionnaire was never received by the GP.
• Despite a GP letter sent after that appointment confirming no concerns at Mr Beasley’s physical or mental health in terms of fitness to drive, this was rejected because it did not contain the information in questionnaire format.
• It appears to have taken the intervention of his then MP, Greg Clarke, to unlock the impasse.
• There was a delay in booking a further GP appointment in Feb 24.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to provide timely explanations for licence delays and removal decisions
Wider context from the report “Mr Beasley had been unable to find out the reason for the delay , nor was he informed until late in the process what the original reason for removal of his licence had been.
• It eventually transpired that this arose due to a previous attempt at self-harm over twenty years earlier, since and despite which he had driven professionally for many years. It was never made clear why this was so.
” Open source report
Concerns raised 1 Failure of HGV medical licence assessments to verify driver-provided medical information against medical records View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Ian Paul HARRIS · 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
Ian Paul Harris was driving on the A483 at Sweeney, Oswestry, on 23 August 2024 when his car collided with an oncoming heavy goods vehicle after he lost control, most likely due to a medical condition. The report raises concerns that he provided inaccurate information about his medical condition when renewing his HGV licence, and that an independent GP completed the medical examination without access to his medical records. It questions whether drivers should be required to obtain the report from their own GP or whether independent GPs should have access to relevant medical records.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of HGV medical licence assessments to verify driver-provided medical information against medical records
Wider context from the report “• For whatever reason the deceased did not seek the medical report from his own GP, who would have known about his medical condition and who therefore would not have been able to support the application. Instead the deceased went to an independent GP and that GP completed the medical examination report based solely on what the deceased had told him (and without disclosing his medical condition) without having access to his medical records .
• A statement from DVLA relating to this inquest tells us that a driver is recommended to have their own GP complete the examination and the D4 medical report but there is no obligation on drivers to see their own GP .
• The concern is if a driver is prepared to provide inaccurate information to the DVLA there is nothing to prevent him doing the same to an independent GP who has no means of checking the accuracy of the information given to them . It then raises the question, what is the purpose and value of a driver being able to provide information to an independent GP who is not in a position to confirm its accuracy?
• In my view, consideration should be given as to whether a report from the driver’s own GP should be required or, if not, an independent GP should be able to have access to the medical records themselves.
” Open source report
×
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 Own-GP D4 examinations are not required because they may impose significant time and cost impacts, and GPs need not provide this private work.
Verbatim wording from the response “The DVLA recommends that drivers ask their own GP to complete the D4 medical report as the GP will have access to medical records and could provide medical information that may be required. However, it is not a legal requirement for drivers to ask their own GP to carry out the examination and complete the D4 report. Making it a requirement for a driver’s own GP to carry out the examination and complete the form may have significant impacts on drivers and the transport industry in terms of time and costs. Also, GPs are not obliged to complete D4 medical reports as this is classed as private work and is not carried out on the NHS.” Source location Response from DVLA
Open published response
Concerns raised 1 Lack of medical fitness-to-drive assessment for drivers over 70 View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Dorothy Jennifer Nias · 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
Dorothy Nias was involved in a road traffic collision on the A39 at Devoran, Truro, after confusing the brake and accelerator pedals in her automatic vehicle. She sustained multiple injuries, experienced a gradual deterioration in her condition and died on 6 November 2023; concerns included her continued driving despite prior minor incidents and the absence of a required medical fitness assessment for drivers over 70.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of medical fitness-to-drive assessment for drivers over 70
Wider context from the report “It was clear from the evidence that there were concerns raised by family members to Miss Nias regarding her ability to continue to drive having had a number of minor incidents prior to this collision. Despite encouragement to use alternative means of transport she was described as independent and chose to continue. The accident was caused by confusion between her brake and accelerator pedals in an automatic transmission vehicle, allowing her speed to increase without restriction and as a result she was unable to negotiate the roundabout leading to the collision. At present there is no upper age limit for drivers. Drivers over 70 are required to apply for a new licence every 3 years and there is no requirement for there to be any form of medical check or assessment to confirm fitness to drive . The applicant must make a self-declaration .
” Open source report
×
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 Secretary of State for Transport will provide the substantive response on behalf of both interested persons.
Verbatim wording from the response “My team has worked with Department of Transport colleagues on this matter and a full and substantive reply to your report, agreed on behalf of both Interested Persons, will be sent by the Secretary of State for Transport.” Source location Response from DVLA
Open published response
Concerns raised 8 Lack of a system to verify the accuracy of applicants’ medical self-declarations View source Failure to send applicants’ medical self-declarations to GPs alongside requests for further information View source Failure of DVLA working practices to allow Doctors to consider interplay between different medical conditions View source Failure of DVLA guidance, standards and working practices to enable Doctors to exercise their required medical review role View source Insufficient scope in DVLA GP information-request forms for detailed information and full assessment View source Lack of audit of DVLA Doctors’ licence re-issue decisions View source Failure to actively encourage DVLA Doctors to request further medical history information View source Failure to generally seek further information from identified Speciality Doctors involved in applicants’ medical care and treatment View source See 5 more concerns
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
Geoffrey Stewart Toase and Michael William Midgley · 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 3 August 2019, Geoffrey Stewart Toase and Michael William Midgley died at the scene of a head-on motorcycle collision on the A166 Garrowby Hill. The collision involved a car travelling wholly on the wrong side of the carriageway, and the driver was considered likely to have been experiencing a hypoglycaemic episode. Concerns were raised about DVLA medical review practices, including limited requests for medical information, insufficient GP forms, inadequate consideration of interacting conditions, lack of verification of self-declarations, and absence of audit of licensing decisions.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of a system to verify the accuracy of applicants’ medical self-declarations
Wider context from the report “I heard evidence from two representatives of the DVLA at the inquest, including a DVLA employed Doctor. That Doctor gave evidence about their role in the medical review and decision to re-issue a license to the driver of the car involved in the fatal collision. That evidence gave rise to the following concerns:
a) DVLA Doctors are not actively encouraged by the DVLA to request further information about an applicant’s medical history.
b) The DVLA does not generally seek further information from any identified Speciality Doctor that may be involved in an applicant’s medical care and treatment; any requests for further information are usually directed to an applicant’s General Practitioner (GP).
c) The forms sent to an applicant’s GP by the DVLA for the purpose of obtaining further information are largely tick box in nature and do not provide sufficient scope for the GP to provide more detailed information and this therefore does not allow for a full assessment to be conducted by the reviewing DVLA Doctor.
d) Current DVLA working practices do not appear to allow DVLA Doctors to consider the interplay between different medical conditions an applicant may be suffering with.
e) There is no apparent system in place to verify the accuracy of the information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration and that this information is generally accepted by the DVLA without question.
f) The information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration is no longer sent to their GP by the DVLA alongside any request for further information, which limits any scope for the GP to identify if the information contained within a medical self-declaration is accurate.
g) The DVLA Doctor involved in this case gave evidence that they felt “constrained” by the DVLA guidance, standards and working practices they are required to work to.
h) The decisions made by DVLA Doctors when considering to re-issue a license are not subject to any form of audit procedure to ensure accuracy and consistency 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to send applicants’ medical self-declarations to GPs alongside requests for further information
Wider context from the report “I heard evidence from two representatives of the DVLA at the inquest, including a DVLA employed Doctor. That Doctor gave evidence about their role in the medical review and decision to re-issue a license to the driver of the car involved in the fatal collision. That evidence gave rise to the following concerns:
a) DVLA Doctors are not actively encouraged by the DVLA to request further information about an applicant’s medical history.
b) The DVLA does not generally seek further information from any identified Speciality Doctor that may be involved in an applicant’s medical care and treatment; any requests for further information are usually directed to an applicant’s General Practitioner (GP).
c) The forms sent to an applicant’s GP by the DVLA for the purpose of obtaining further information are largely tick box in nature and do not provide sufficient scope for the GP to provide more detailed information and this therefore does not allow for a full assessment to be conducted by the reviewing DVLA Doctor.
d) Current DVLA working practices do not appear to allow DVLA Doctors to consider the interplay between different medical conditions an applicant may be suffering with.
e) There is no apparent system in place to verify the accuracy of the information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration and that this information is generally accepted by the DVLA without question.
f) The information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration is no longer sent to their GP by the DVLA alongside any request for further information , which limits any scope for the GP to identify if the information contained within a medical self-declaration is accurate.
g) The DVLA Doctor involved in this case gave evidence that they felt “constrained” by the DVLA guidance, standards and working practices they are required to work to.
h) The decisions made by DVLA Doctors when considering to re-issue a license are not subject to any form of audit procedure to ensure accuracy and consistency 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of DVLA working practices to allow Doctors to consider interplay between different medical conditions
Wider context from the report “I heard evidence from two representatives of the DVLA at the inquest, including a DVLA employed Doctor. That Doctor gave evidence about their role in the medical review and decision to re-issue a license to the driver of the car involved in the fatal collision. That evidence gave rise to the following concerns:
a) DVLA Doctors are not actively encouraged by the DVLA to request further information about an applicant’s medical history.
b) The DVLA does not generally seek further information from any identified Speciality Doctor that may be involved in an applicant’s medical care and treatment; any requests for further information are usually directed to an applicant’s General Practitioner (GP).
c) The forms sent to an applicant’s GP by the DVLA for the purpose of obtaining further information are largely tick box in nature and do not provide sufficient scope for the GP to provide more detailed information and this therefore does not allow for a full assessment to be conducted by the reviewing DVLA Doctor.
d) Current DVLA working practices do not appear to allow DVLA Doctors to consider the interplay between different medical conditions an applicant may be suffering with.
e) There is no apparent system in place to verify the accuracy of the information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration and that this information is generally accepted by the DVLA without question.
f) The information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration is no longer sent to their GP by the DVLA alongside any request for further information, which limits any scope for the GP to identify if the information contained within a medical self-declaration is accurate.
g) The DVLA Doctor involved in this case gave evidence that they felt “constrained” by the DVLA guidance, standards and working practices they are required to work to.
h) The decisions made by DVLA Doctors when considering to re-issue a license are not subject to any form of audit procedure to ensure accuracy and consistency 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of DVLA guidance, standards and working practices to enable Doctors to exercise their required medical review role
Wider context from the report “I heard evidence from two representatives of the DVLA at the inquest, including a DVLA employed Doctor. That Doctor gave evidence about their role in the medical review and decision to re-issue a license to the driver of the car involved in the fatal collision. That evidence gave rise to the following concerns:
a) DVLA Doctors are not actively encouraged by the DVLA to request further information about an applicant’s medical history.
b) The DVLA does not generally seek further information from any identified Speciality Doctor that may be involved in an applicant’s medical care and treatment; any requests for further information are usually directed to an applicant’s General Practitioner (GP).
c) The forms sent to an applicant’s GP by the DVLA for the purpose of obtaining further information are largely tick box in nature and do not provide sufficient scope for the GP to provide more detailed information and this therefore does not allow for a full assessment to be conducted by the reviewing DVLA Doctor.
d) Current DVLA working practices do not appear to allow DVLA Doctors to consider the interplay between different medical conditions an applicant may be suffering with.
e) There is no apparent system in place to verify the accuracy of the information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration and that this information is generally accepted by the DVLA without question.
f) The information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration is no longer sent to their GP by the DVLA alongside any request for further information, which limits any scope for the GP to identify if the information contained within a medical self-declaration is accurate.
g) The DVLA Doctor involved in this case gave evidence that they felt “constrained” by the DVLA guidance, standards and working practices they are required to work to.
h) The decisions made by DVLA Doctors when considering to re-issue a license are not subject to any form of audit procedure to ensure accuracy and consistency 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient scope in DVLA GP information-request forms for detailed information and full assessment
Wider context from the report “I heard evidence from two representatives of the DVLA at the inquest, including a DVLA employed Doctor. That Doctor gave evidence about their role in the medical review and decision to re-issue a license to the driver of the car involved in the fatal collision. That evidence gave rise to the following concerns:
a) DVLA Doctors are not actively encouraged by the DVLA to request further information about an applicant’s medical history.
b) The DVLA does not generally seek further information from any identified Speciality Doctor that may be involved in an applicant’s medical care and treatment; any requests for further information are usually directed to an applicant’s General Practitioner (GP).
c) The forms sent to an applicant’s GP by the DVLA for the purpose of obtaining further information are largely tick box in nature and do not provide sufficient scope for the GP to provide more detailed information and this therefore does not allow for a full assessment to be conducted by the reviewing DVLA Doctor.
d) Current DVLA working practices do not appear to allow DVLA Doctors to consider the interplay between different medical conditions an applicant may be suffering with.
e) There is no apparent system in place to verify the accuracy of the information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration and that this information is generally accepted by the DVLA without question.
f) The information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration is no longer sent to their GP by the DVLA alongside any request for further information, which limits any scope for the GP to identify if the information contained within a medical self-declaration is accurate.
g) The DVLA Doctor involved in this case gave evidence that they felt “constrained” by the DVLA guidance, standards and working practices they are required to work to.
h) The decisions made by DVLA Doctors when considering to re-issue a license are not subject to any form of audit procedure to ensure accuracy and consistency 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of audit of DVLA Doctors’ licence re-issue decisions
Wider context from the report “I heard evidence from two representatives of the DVLA at the inquest, including a DVLA employed Doctor. That Doctor gave evidence about their role in the medical review and decision to re-issue a license to the driver of the car involved in the fatal collision. That evidence gave rise to the following concerns:
a) DVLA Doctors are not actively encouraged by the DVLA to request further information about an applicant’s medical history.
b) The DVLA does not generally seek further information from any identified Speciality Doctor that may be involved in an applicant’s medical care and treatment; any requests for further information are usually directed to an applicant’s General Practitioner (GP).
c) The forms sent to an applicant’s GP by the DVLA for the purpose of obtaining further information are largely tick box in nature and do not provide sufficient scope for the GP to provide more detailed information and this therefore does not allow for a full assessment to be conducted by the reviewing DVLA Doctor.
d) Current DVLA working practices do not appear to allow DVLA Doctors to consider the interplay between different medical conditions an applicant may be suffering with.
e) There is no apparent system in place to verify the accuracy of the information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration and that this information is generally accepted by the DVLA without question.
f) The information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration is no longer sent to their GP by the DVLA alongside any request for further information, which limits any scope for the GP to identify if the information contained within a medical self-declaration is accurate.
g) The DVLA Doctor involved in this case gave evidence that they felt “constrained” by the DVLA guidance, standards and working practices they are required to work to.
h) The decisions made by DVLA Doctors when considering to re-issue a license are not subject to any form of audit procedure to ensure accuracy and consistency 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to actively encourage DVLA Doctors to request further medical history information
Wider context from the report “I heard evidence from two representatives of the DVLA at the inquest, including a DVLA employed Doctor. That Doctor gave evidence about their role in the medical review and decision to re-issue a license to the driver of the car involved in the fatal collision. That evidence gave rise to the following concerns:
a) DVLA Doctors are not actively encouraged by the DVLA to request further information about an applicant’s medical history.
b) The DVLA does not generally seek further information from any identified Speciality Doctor that may be involved in an applicant’s medical care and treatment; any requests for further information are usually directed to an applicant’s General Practitioner (GP).
c) The forms sent to an applicant’s GP by the DVLA for the purpose of obtaining further information are largely tick box in nature and do not provide sufficient scope for the GP to provide more detailed information and this therefore does not allow for a full assessment to be conducted by the reviewing DVLA Doctor.
d) Current DVLA working practices do not appear to allow DVLA Doctors to consider the interplay between different medical conditions an applicant may be suffering with.
e) There is no apparent system in place to verify the accuracy of the information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration and that this information is generally accepted by the DVLA without question.
f) The information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration is no longer sent to their GP by the DVLA alongside any request for further information, which limits any scope for the GP to identify if the information contained within a medical self-declaration is accurate.
g) The DVLA Doctor involved in this case gave evidence that they felt “constrained” by the DVLA guidance, standards and working practices they are required to work to.
h) The decisions made by DVLA Doctors when considering to re-issue a license are not subject to any form of audit procedure to ensure accuracy and consistency 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to generally seek further information from identified Speciality Doctors involved in applicants’ medical care and treatment
Wider context from the report “I heard evidence from two representatives of the DVLA at the inquest, including a DVLA employed Doctor. That Doctor gave evidence about their role in the medical review and decision to re-issue a license to the driver of the car involved in the fatal collision. That evidence gave rise to the following concerns:
a) DVLA Doctors are not actively encouraged by the DVLA to request further information about an applicant’s medical history.
b) The DVLA does not generally seek further information from any identified Speciality Doctor that may be involved in an applicant’s medical care and treatment; any requests for further information are usually directed to an applicant’s General Practitioner (GP).
c) The forms sent to an applicant’s GP by the DVLA for the purpose of obtaining further information are largely tick box in nature and do not provide sufficient scope for the GP to provide more detailed information and this therefore does not allow for a full assessment to be conducted by the reviewing DVLA Doctor.
d) Current DVLA working practices do not appear to allow DVLA Doctors to consider the interplay between different medical conditions an applicant may be suffering with.
e) There is no apparent system in place to verify the accuracy of the information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration and that this information is generally accepted by the DVLA without question.
f) The information provided by an applicant within their medical self-declaration is no longer sent to their GP by the DVLA alongside any request for further information, which limits any scope for the GP to identify if the information contained within a medical self-declaration is accurate.
g) The DVLA Doctor involved in this case gave evidence that they felt “constrained” by the DVLA guidance, standards and working practices they are required to work to.
h) The decisions made by DVLA Doctors when considering to re-issue a license are not subject to any form of audit procedure to ensure accuracy and consistency of decision-making.
” Open source report
2 Mar 2023 Kathleen Grace Fancourt · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Failure to require medical fitness checks for drivers over 70 View source Lack of an upper legal age limit for drivers View source
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
Kathleen Grace Fancourt · 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
Kathleen Fancourt was killed when a Peugeot car struck her mobility scooter as she crossed Broyle Road at a pedestrian crossing on 16 September 2021. The report raises concern that drivers over 70 must renew their licences every three years but are not required to undergo medical checks, leaving potential medical conditions to self-declaration and potentially posing risks to other road users.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to require medical fitness checks for drivers over 70
Wider context from the report “This accident was caused by a driver who was 95 years old. At present there is no upper legal limit for drivers. Whilst drivers over 70 are required to apply for a new licence every 3 years there is no requirement for there to be any form of medical check to confirm their fitness to drive . It is left to a self declaration of any medical condition by the driver . There is a concern that if no checks are carried out a driver may be oblivious to their enduring medical condition and this may pose a serious risk to other road users.
In 2020 (the last figures publicly available) there were 174 fatal accidents cause by drivers over the age of 70 years old. The Government’s own statistics confirm that “driver illness or disability (mental or physical)” was the 4th most common contributory factor to these deaths.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of an upper legal age limit for drivers
Wider context from the report “This accident was caused by a driver who was 95 years old. At present there is no upper legal limit for drivers. Whilst drivers over 70 are required to apply for a new licence every 3 years there is no requirement for there to be any form of medical check to confirm their fitness to drive. It is left to a self declaration of any medical condition by the driver. There is a concern that if no checks are carried out a driver may be oblivious to their enduring medical condition and this may pose a serious risk to other road users.
In 2020 (the last figures publicly available) there were 174 fatal accidents cause by drivers over the age of 70 years old. The Government’s own statistics confirm that “driver illness or disability (mental or physical)” was the 4th most common contributory factor to these deaths.
” Open source report
10 Sep 2021 Billy Martyn WARWICK-JONES · Prevention of Future Deaths report West London
View report summary
Concerns raised 4 Absence of specific driving guidance for sudden-onset confusion or delirium in physically unwell older people View source Failure to advise drivers and families that confusion, agitation or delirium may render driving unfit View source Insufficient road-safety instruction for older drivers View source Insufficient road-safety testing of older drivers View source See 1 more concern
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
Billy Martyn WARWICK-JONES · 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
Billy was killed while riding his motorbike when he was struck head-on by a car travelling on the wrong side of the A3. The driver was elderly, unwell with a urinary tract infection, delirious and had driven for 16 hours. The concerns included insufficient advice about delirium-related unfitness to drive and inadequate testing and guidance on road safety for older drivers.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Absence of specific driving guidance for sudden-onset confusion or delirium in physically unwell older people
Wider context from the report “The driver of the vehicle that caused this death was unwell with a urine tract infection. He had previously been treated for a urine tract infection. There is no evidence to suggest that he or his family were advised that he may demonstrate symptoms of confusion, agitation or delirium as a consequence of this and they would render him unfit to drive.
There appears to be insufficient testing and instruction of the older population with regards to road safety, which led to this tragic outcome. While there are guidelines for driving for dementia or mild cognitive impairment produced by the General Medical Council, there appears to be nothing specific to other sudden onset confusion or delirium which is a well recognised and common symptom in the elderly when physically unwell.
It is recognised that our population are growing older and that an increasing number of this cohort will have a driving licence. It is of concern that a situation can arise that leads to the loss of another drivers life, and additional lives could very easily have been lost as a consequence of this incident. Consideration should be given to more frequent, rigorous testing and to consider the duties that should be placed on the driver, their medical practitioners and also family members/carers to report changes in presentation or health to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to advise drivers and families that confusion, agitation or delirium may render driving unfit
Wider context from the report “The driver of the vehicle that caused this death was unwell with a urine tract infection. He had previously been treated for a urine tract infection. There is no evidence to suggest that he or his family were advised that he may demonstrate symptoms of confusion, agitation or delirium as a consequence of this and they would render him unfit to drive.
There appears to be insufficient testing and instruction of the older population with regards to road safety, which led to this tragic outcome. While there are guidelines for driving for dementia or mild cognitive impairment produced by the General Medical Council, there appears to be nothing specific to other sudden onset confusion or delirium which is a well recognised and common symptom in the elderly when physically unwell.
It is recognised that our population are growing older and that an increasing number of this cohort will have a driving licence. It is of concern that a situation can arise that leads to the loss of another drivers life, and additional lives could very easily have been lost as a consequence of this incident. Consideration should be given to more frequent, rigorous testing and to consider the duties that should be placed on the driver, their medical practitioners and also family members/carers to report changes in presentation or health to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient road-safety instruction for older drivers
Wider context from the report “The driver of the vehicle that caused this death was unwell with a urine tract infection. He had previously been treated for a urine tract infection. There is no evidence to suggest that he or his family were advised that he may demonstrate symptoms of confusion, agitation or delirium as a consequence of this and they would render him unfit to drive.
There appears to be insufficient testing and instruction of the older population with regards to road safety , which led to this tragic outcome. While there are guidelines for driving for dementia or mild cognitive impairment produced by the General Medical Council, there appears to be nothing specific to other sudden onset confusion or delirium which is a well recognised and common symptom in the elderly when physically unwell.
It is recognised that our population are growing older and that an increasing number of this cohort will have a driving licence. It is of concern that a situation can arise that leads to the loss of another drivers life, and additional lives could very easily have been lost as a consequence of this incident. Consideration should be given to more frequent, rigorous testing and to consider the duties that should be placed on the driver, their medical practitioners and also family members/carers to report changes in presentation or health to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient road-safety testing of older drivers
Wider context from the report “The driver of the vehicle that caused this death was unwell with a urine tract infection. He had previously been treated for a urine tract infection. There is no evidence to suggest that he or his family were advised that he may demonstrate symptoms of confusion, agitation or delirium as a consequence of this and they would render him unfit to drive.
There appears to be insufficient testing and instruction of the older population with regards to road safety, which led to this tragic outcome. While there are guidelines for driving for dementia or mild cognitive impairment produced by the General Medical Council, there appears to be nothing specific to other sudden onset confusion or delirium which is a well recognised and common symptom in the elderly when physically unwell.
It is recognised that our population are growing older and that an increasing number of this cohort will have a driving licence. It is of concern that a situation can arise that leads to the loss of another drivers life, and additional lives could very easily have been lost as a consequence of this incident. Consideration should be given to more frequent, rigorous testing and to consider the duties that should be placed on the driver, their medical practitioners and also family members/carers to report changes in presentation or health to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
” Open source report
25 May 2021 Christopher Lloyd TAYLOR · Prevention of Future Deaths report Lincolnshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 1 Failure to prevent a fixed monitor from obstructing the driver's field of view during public-highway driving View source
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 Lloyd TAYLOR · 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 Lloyd TAYLOR died after falling from his bicycle and being run over by an agricultural crop sprayer on a narrow rural road on 15 June 2020. The principal concern was that a screen mounted inside the sprayer’s cab created a blind spot, preventing the driver from seeing the cyclist; the screen had no function while driving on the public highway and did not need to be fixed in place.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to prevent a fixed monitor from obstructing the driver's field of view during public-highway driving
Wider context from the report “(i) The driver of the crop sprayer sat in a cab at the front of his vehicle. It provided an elevated view of the road with full length windows to the front and both sides.
(ii) Directly in front of the driver was a steering wheel and an A pillar at each front corner of the cab.
(III) To the right hand A pillar there was affixed a flat screen monitor. That was for use only when the crop sprayer was being used for agricultural purposes.
(IV) A police reconstruction established that the presence of the screen fixed created a 'blind-spot' in the drivers field of view extending several metres in depth.
(V) The driver of the crop sprayer had not seen the cyclist approach throughout the limited time he would have been in view. On balance that occurred directly as a consequence of the presence of the screen.
(vi) The screen had no function at all whilst the vehicle was being driven on the public highway and did not need to be on a fixed mounting.
” Open source report
12 May 2021 Steven James Oscroft · Prevention of Future Deaths report Nottinghamshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Failure to load tipper lorries with loose materials below the level of the sides View source Failure of sheeting systems to fully cover and secure loose materials on tipper lorries View source Failure of mesh sheeting systems to fully cover and secure loose materials on tipper lorries View source
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
Steven James Oscroft · 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
Steven James Oscroft was killed instantly when a piece of concrete fell from an oncoming lorry and smashed through his windscreen while he was driving on 7 July 2020. The concerns included the practice of mounding loads above the sides of tipper lorries and using sheeting systems that could leave material uncovered and liable to fall or be blown from the vehicle.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to load tipper lorries with loose materials below the level of the sides
Wider context from the report “Paul Wainwright Construction Services Ltd
Evidence was heard regarding the training and practices of loading tipper lorries at Paul Wainwright Construction Services Ltd.
1. Loads are ‘mounded’ such that in the middle of the load area, the height of the load extends above the level of the sides , whilst being below the level of the sides at the point at which the load contacts the side. Part of the load is therefore above the level of the sides, increasing the risk of items on the load falling or blowing off the vehicle.
2. Industry standard sheeting systems are in use which, when the load is ‘mounded’ in this way, causes the sheet to be drawn up. This results in part of the load being uncovered and liable to fall or be blown from the vehicle.
3. Such standard sheeting systems are not designed to be used on loads mounded above the level of the sides and cannot prevent ‘blow off’ from the areas of the load uncovered by the mesh.
4. Evidence was adduced of a number of loads on Wainwrights lorries which, because of the above practice, appeared not to be fully secure.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of sheeting systems to fully cover and secure loose materials on tipper lorries
Wider context from the report “Paul Wainwright Construction Services Ltd
Evidence was heard regarding the training and practices of loading tipper lorries at Paul Wainwright Construction Services Ltd.
1. Loads are ‘mounded’ such that in the middle of the load area, the height of the load extends above the level of the sides, whilst being below the level of the sides at the point at which the load contacts the side. Part of the load is therefore above the level of the sides, increasing the risk of items on the load falling or blowing off the vehicle.
2. Industry standard sheeting systems are in use which, when the load is ‘mounded’ in this way, causes the sheet to be drawn up. This results in part of the load being uncovered and liable to fall or be blown from the vehicle.
3. Such standard sheeting systems are not designed to be used on loads mounded above the level of the sides and cannot prevent ‘blow off’ from the areas of the load uncovered by the mesh.
4. Evidence was adduced of a number of loads on Wainwrights lorries which, because of the above practice, appeared not to be fully secure.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of mesh sheeting systems to fully cover and secure loose materials on tipper lorries
Wider context from the report “The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
Evidence was heard regarding the manner in which loose materials are loaded and secured onto tipper lorries.
1. The above-mentioned practice of ‘mounding’ loads above the level of the sides is standard practice within the industry.
2. Mesh sheeting systems are commonly deployed in circumstances when the mesh does not cover all of the material being carried.
3. Mesh sheeting systems are typically not secured at the sides and are installed in such a way as to leave a small gap at the sides and a larger gap at the back.
” Open source report
16 Jul 2018 Tyrone Declan EVANS · Prevention of Future Deaths report Coventry
View report summary
Concerns raised 1 Absence of a legal requirement for road-using quad bike drivers to wear crash helmets View source
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
Tyrone Declan EVANS · 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 15 September 2017, Tyrone Declan EVANS was thrown from a quad bike after it collided with a crash barrier and another vehicle, suffering fatal injuries. The principal concern was that quad bike riders were not legally required to wear crash helmets, despite the pathologist’s view that helmet use may have altered the head injury pattern and potentially reduced its severity. The report identified this absence of a legal requirement as a continuing and potentially avoidable risk of deaths on the roads.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Absence of a legal requirement for road-using quad bike drivers to wear crash helmets
Wider context from the report “(1) The medical cause of death was 1a Blunt Head Injury and the conclusion of the pathologist included the following: "I note the suggestion that he was not wearing a helmet and in my opinion the head injury pattern would support this. As a pathologist I am not in a position to provide expert evidence on the issue of whether or not a helmet would have prevented the death but clearly when a death is caused by an isolated head injury, one has to suggest that wearing a helmet may well have altered the injury pattern and potentially severity, at least from basic principles".
(2) I was informed at the inquest that the quad bike the deceased was driving was an off-road vehicle that had been adapted to use on the road. Yamaha UK confirmed to police that the vehicle had undertaken an Individual Vehicle Approval test by the Vehicle Operator Services Agency (VOSA) and had been issued with a registration number.
(3) I was also informed at the inquest by the Collision Investigator that quad bike riders or passengers in England, Scotland and Wales are not required to wear crash helmets .
(4) In light of the pathologist’s comments and I am concerned that the absence of any legal requirement for quad bike drivers to wear crash helmets even where such bikes have been legally adapted for road use presents a continuing and potentially avoidable risk of deaths on our roads .
” Open source report
Concerns raised 3 Failure of the driver and treating clinicians reporting pathway to obtain relevant medical fitness information View source Lack of mechanisms for formal medical review of drivers with deteriorating or fluctuating health View source Lack of mechanisms for ensuring required vehicle modifications remain relevant, in place and used View source
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
Henry Prow · 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
Henry Prow died at the scene after his car collided with a roundabout while he was returning from a medical appointment. A medical event before the collision could not be excluded. Concerns were raised about mechanisms for medical review of drivers with deteriorating or fluctuating health, the potential impact of licence surrender, and whether required vehicle modifications remained appropriate and were being used.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of the driver and treating clinicians reporting pathway to obtain relevant medical fitness information
Wider context from the report “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and a friend as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences and the terms and conditions for ensuring appropriate modification of driver’s vehicles.
Mr Prow had been a very fit and active man and worked as a training instructor in the Army for 3 years. As a result of his deteriorating poor health he lost his mobility and he was keen not to lose his driving license which would reduce his independence. At inquest it was considered that the collision was possibly preceded by Mr Prow having a medical issue/event.
The DVLA appears to have limited mechanisms for drivers to be formally medically reviewed for the purpose of being medically fit to drive. In particular in cases where drivers have deteriorating health or fluctuating health (of which they may not have insight) as in the case of Mr Prow.
It is understood that at present the treating GP/doctors or the driver themselves have a duty to advise the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive . A driver’s voluntary surrender of a driving licence (especially in a rural area with little public transport) may have a serious detrimental effect on their health and social/employment situation making it unrealistic expectation on the driver in many cases. There was concern, that the driver's GP/doctors could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which could result in the surrender of the driving licence which could/would result in deterioration of the patient/doctor relationship e.g. such as patients withholding significant medical information with their doctors for fear of losing their licence .
There were also concerns that there appeared to be no mechanism for ensuring the required modification to the vehicles were still relevant to the vehicle that they were driving at the time (he had changed cars since requirement made and his health had deteriorated) and were appropriately in place and used .
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of mechanisms for formal medical review of drivers with deteriorating or fluctuating health
Wider context from the report “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and a friend as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences and the terms and conditions for ensuring appropriate modification of driver’s vehicles.
Mr Prow had been a very fit and active man and worked as a training instructor in the Army for 3 years. As a result of his deteriorating poor health he lost his mobility and he was keen not to lose his driving license which would reduce his independence. At inquest it was considered that the collision was possibly preceded by Mr Prow having a medical issue/event.
The DVLA appears to have limited mechanisms for drivers to be formally medically reviewed for the purpose of being medically fit to drive. In particular in cases where drivers have deteriorating health or fluctuating health (of which they may not have insight) as in the case of Mr Prow.
It is understood that at present the treating GP/doctors or the driver themselves have a duty to advise the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive. A driver’s voluntary surrender of a driving licence (especially in a rural area with little public transport) may have a serious detrimental effect on their health and social/employment situation making it unrealistic expectation on the driver in many cases. There was concern, that the driver's GP/doctors could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which could result in the surrender of the driving licence which could/would result in deterioration of the patient/doctor relationship e.g. such as patients withholding significant medical information with their doctors for fear of losing their licence.
There were also concerns that there appeared to be no mechanism for ensuring the required modification to the vehicles were still relevant to the vehicle that they were driving at the time (he had changed cars since requirement made and his health had deteriorated) and were appropriately in place and used .
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of mechanisms for ensuring required vehicle modifications remain relevant, in place and used
Wider context from the report “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and a friend as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences and the terms and conditions for ensuring appropriate modification of driver’s vehicles.
Mr Prow had been a very fit and active man and worked as a training instructor in the Army for 3 years. As a result of his deteriorating poor health he lost his mobility and he was keen not to lose his driving license which would reduce his independence. At inquest it was considered that the collision was possibly preceded by Mr Prow having a medical issue/event.
The DVLA appears to have limited mechanisms for drivers to be formally medically reviewed for the purpose of being medically fit to drive. In particular in cases where drivers have deteriorating health or fluctuating health (of which they may not have insight) as in the case of Mr Prow.
It is understood that at present the treating GP/doctors or the driver themselves have a duty to advise the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive. A driver’s voluntary surrender of a driving licence (especially in a rural area with little public transport) may have a serious detrimental effect on their health and social/employment situation making it unrealistic expectation on the driver in many cases. There was concern, that the driver's GP/doctors could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which could result in the surrender of the driving licence which could/would result in deterioration of the patient/doctor relationship e.g. such as patients withholding significant medical information with their doctors for fear of losing their licence.
There were also concerns that there appeared to be no mechanism for ensuring the required modification to the vehicles were still relevant to the vehicle that they were driving at the time (he had changed cars since requirement made and his health had deteriorated) and were appropriately in place and used .
” Open source report
Concerns raised 4 Failure of elderly drivers to recognise and disclose health conditions affecting driving View source Failure of drivers to surrender licences when medically necessary View source Unclear criteria for issuing and surrendering driving licences View source Conflict of interests affecting GPs’ reporting of driving-related medical issues View source See 1 more concern
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
Geoffrey Frank Taylor · 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
Geoffrey Frank Taylor, aged 75, died from fatal injuries sustained in a road traffic collision while driving in Cornwall on 8 August 2016. Concerns were raised about the criteria and processes for issuing and surrendering driving licences after medical events, including potential conflicts for GPs and difficulties faced by elderly drivers who may be reluctant to report health problems or surrender their licences.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of elderly drivers to recognise and disclose health conditions affecting driving
Wider context from the report “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and family members as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences. In this case Mr Taylor had voluntarily given up his licence after medical events on a number of occasions. It was considered that a good number of drivers may not have given up their licence for fear or losing their independence putting their own health and other at risk. There was further concern that the driver’s GP could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive, which could result in deterioration of the GP relationship with the patient.
This was thought to be of particular concern in the elderly who may or may not have insight into their failing health (e.g. eye sight, immobility) and who would be reluctant to voluntarily surrender their licence or inform their GP of significant medical events which would result in the surrendering of their licence.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of drivers to surrender licences when medically necessary
Wider context from the report “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and family members as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences. In this case Mr Taylor had voluntarily given up his licence after medical events on a number of occasions. It was considered that a good number of drivers may not have given up their licence for fear or losing their independence putting their own health and other at risk . There was further concern that the driver’s GP could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive, which could result in deterioration of the GP relationship with the patient.
This was thought to be of particular concern in the elderly who may or may not have insight into their failing health (e.g. eye sight, immobility) and who would be reluctant to voluntarily surrender their licence or inform their GP of significant medical events which would result in the surrendering of their licence.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Unclear criteria for issuing and surrendering driving licences
Wider context from the report “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and family members as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences . In this case Mr Taylor had voluntarily given up his licence after medical events on a number of occasions. It was considered that a good number of drivers may not have given up their licence for fear or losing their independence putting their own health and other at risk. There was further concern that the driver’s GP could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive, which could result in deterioration of the GP relationship with the patient.
This was thought to be of particular concern in the elderly who may or may not have insight into their failing health (e.g. eye sight, immobility) and who would be reluctant to voluntarily surrender their licence or inform their GP of significant medical events which would result in the surrendering of their licence.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Conflict of interests affecting GPs’ reporting of driving-related medical issues
Wider context from the report “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and family members as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences. In this case Mr Taylor had voluntarily given up his licence after medical events on a number of occasions. It was considered that a good number of drivers may not have given up their licence for fear or losing their independence putting their own health and other at risk. There was further concern that the driver’s GP could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive , which could result in deterioration of the GP relationship with the patient .
This was thought to be of particular concern in the elderly who may or may not have insight into their failing health (e.g. eye sight, immobility) and who would be reluctant to voluntarily surrender their licence or inform their GP of significant medical events which would result in the surrendering of their licence.
” Open source report
13 Jan 2016 Arenijus Nedzelskis · Prevention of Future Deaths report South Lincolnshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Lack of regulatory control over 5F AKB-48 and 5F PB-22 View source Failure to report chronic misuse of cannabinoid receptor agonists to the DVLA Medical Branch View source
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
Arenijus Nedzelskis · 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
Arenijus Nedzelskis, a lorry driver experiencing financial difficulties linked to spending on synthetic cannabinoids, was found hanging after an argument with his partner. The concerns were that 5F AKB-48 and 5F PB-22 were not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and that he had not reported his chronic misuse of cannabinoid receptor agonists to the DVLA Medical Branch.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of regulatory control over 5F AKB-48 and 5F PB-22
Wider context from the report “1 That neither 5F AKB-48 nor 5F PB-22 are currently controlled by regulations made under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to report chronic misuse of cannabinoid receptor agonists to the DVLA Medical Branch
Wider context from the report “2 That the deceased had not reported his chronic misuse of cannabinoid receptor agonists to the DVLA Medical Branch .
” Open source report
16 Dec 2015 William Francis Driscoll · Prevention of Future Deaths report Birmingham and Solihull
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Failure to follow up a GP’s identification of a relevant consultant View source Limited investigation into health conditions declared on form POLN3 View source
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
William Francis Driscoll · 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
William Francis Driscoll died at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham on 30 June 2015 from injuries sustained when a vehicle mounted the pavement and hit him while he was walking. The driver lost control during an epileptic seizure. The report identified serious deficiencies in the DVLA medical assessment process, including limited investigation of health conditions and failure to follow up an identified relevant consultant, which could allow inadequately assessed drivers to continue driving.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to follow up a GP’s identification of a relevant consultant
Wider context from the report “████████ gave evidence that if he had been aware of the incident in September 2014 he would have carried out further investigations revealing the epilepsy that was ultimately diagnosed in August 2015 and thus preventing ████████ from driving before the collision with the deceased. It appears that there are serious deficiencies in the medical assessment process as regards the limited investigation into the health conditions on the form POLN3 and/or in not following up the GP’s identification of a ‘Relevant Consultant’ . As a consequence drivers may be permitted to drive who have not been adequately assessed as fit to do so.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Limited investigation into health conditions declared on form POLN3
Wider context from the report “████████ gave evidence that if he had been aware of the incident in September 2014 he would have carried out further investigations revealing the epilepsy that was ultimately diagnosed in August 2015 and thus preventing ████████ from driving before the collision with the deceased. It appears that there are serious deficiencies in the medical assessment process as regards the limited investigation into the health conditions on the form POLN3 and/or in not following up the GP’s identification of a ‘Relevant Consultant’. As a consequence drivers may be permitted to drive who have not been adequately assessed as fit to do so.
” Open source report
1 Dec 2015 Ricky Craig HUDSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report Birmingham and Solihull
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Lack of additional driving qualification requirements for quad bike driving View source Lack of a requirement for quad bike riders to wear crash helmets on public roads View source
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
Ricky Craig HUDSON · 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
Ricky Craig HUDSON died at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham on 13 August 2015 from injuries sustained when he fell from a quad bike on 11 August 2015. The principal concerns were that quad bike riders are not required to wear crash helmets on public roads and that no additional driving qualifications are required to drive a quad bike.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of additional driving qualification requirements for quad bike driving
Wider context from the report “(1) That quad bike riders are not required to wear crash helmets when driving on public roads.
(2) That there are no additional driving qualifications required to drive a quad bike .
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of a requirement for quad bike riders to wear crash helmets on public roads
Wider context from the report “(1) That quad bike riders are not required to wear crash helmets when driving on public roads .
(2) That there are no additional driving qualifications required to drive a quad bike.
” Open source report
Concerns raised 3 Failure to ensure compliant structural repairs to insurance write-off vehicles View source Uncontrolled sale of insurance write-off vehicles View source Lack of effective independent checks on repaired insurance write-off vehicles before return to the road View source
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
Sadie Ann Jane McGrady · 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
Sadie Ann Jane McGrady died after the vehicle in which she was travelling was struck on a dual carriageway, causing severe head injuries from intrusion of the vehicle’s rear quarter panel. The report raised concerns about substandard repairs to a previously written-off vehicle, the lack of independent checks before repaired vehicles returned to the road, and whether such repairs could increase injury severity in collisions.
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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure compliant structural repairs to insurance write-off vehicles
Wider context from the report “(1) Evidence was given by ████████ Advanced Police Vehicle Examiner indicating that the Vauxhall Corsa was the subject of a category D, total loss insurance claim in May 2008, the insurance claim relating to (inter alia) a crumpled rear offside sill member and adjacent quarter panel and a dented driver’s door. Various repairs had been undertaken to the vehicle and the examiner was concerned by the quality of the repair to the rear offside quarter panel . He noted that it did not comply to the recognised industry repair method and was substandard as there had been unnecessary removal of the complete spot weld resulting in the separation of all 3 panels forming part of the laminated “B” pillar structure and inadequate quality and insufficient mig welding to attach the replacement quarter panel compromising the integrity of the “B” pillar structure .
(2) The consequence of this substandard repair undoubtedly resulted in greater intrusion into the passenger cell when the vehicle was subjected to a severe broadside impact, which in turn may have increased the likelihood of the occupants sustaining serious injury.
(3) The evidence of ████████ Home Office Forensic Pathologist, indicated that the head injuries sustained by Sadie were the result of her head impacting against the intruded rear quarter panel and had this not intruded so much as a result of the collision then it is possible that she may not have sustained such severe head injuries and may well have survived the collision.
(4) Forensic Collision Investigator ████████ indicated in his evidence that in circumstances where there had been a category D write off, there were no independent checks undertaken on repaired vehicles before they returned to the road and that the MOT process would be unlikely to establish that the structure/integrity of a damaged vehicle had been compromised by a substandard repair.
(5) The above matters give rise to a concern that there exists the uncontrolled sale and repair of insurance write offs as a result of which future deaths may occur when previously written off vehicles are back on the road and involved in collisions.
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Uncontrolled sale of insurance write-off vehicles
Wider context from the report “(1) Evidence was given by ████████ Advanced Police Vehicle Examiner indicating that the Vauxhall Corsa was the subject of a category D, total loss insurance claim in May 2008, the insurance claim relating to (inter alia) a crumpled rear offside sill member and adjacent quarter panel and a dented driver’s door. Various repairs had been undertaken to the vehicle and the examiner was concerned by the quality of the repair to the rear offside quarter panel. He noted that it did not comply to the recognised industry repair method and was substandard as there had been unnecessary removal of the complete spot weld resulting in the separation of all 3 panels forming part of the laminated “B” pillar structure and inadequate quality and insufficient mig welding to attach the replacement quarter panel compromising the integrity of the “B” pillar structure.
(2) The consequence of this substandard repair undoubtedly resulted in greater intrusion into the passenger cell when the vehicle was subjected to a severe broadside impact, which in turn may have increased the likelihood of the occupants sustaining serious injury.
(3) The evidence of ████████ Home Office Forensic Pathologist, indicated that the head injuries sustained by Sadie were the result of her head impacting against the intruded rear quarter panel and had this not intruded so much as a result of the collision then it is possible that she may not have sustained such severe head injuries and may well have survived the collision.
(4) Forensic Collision Investigator ████████ indicated in his evidence that in circumstances where there had been a category D write off, there were no independent checks undertaken on repaired vehicles before they returned to the road and that the MOT process would be unlikely to establish that the structure/integrity of a damaged vehicle had been compromised by a substandard repair.
(5) The above matters give rise to a concern that there exists the uncontrolled sale and repair of insurance write offs as a result of which future deaths may occur when previously written off vehicles are back on the road and involved in collisions .
” 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of effective independent checks on repaired insurance write-off vehicles before return to the road
Wider context from the report “(1) Evidence was given by ████████ Advanced Police Vehicle Examiner indicating that the Vauxhall Corsa was the subject of a category D, total loss insurance claim in May 2008, the insurance claim relating to (inter alia) a crumpled rear offside sill member and adjacent quarter panel and a dented driver’s door. Various repairs had been undertaken to the vehicle and the examiner was concerned by the quality of the repair to the rear offside quarter panel. He noted that it did not comply to the recognised industry repair method and was substandard as there had been unnecessary removal of the complete spot weld resulting in the separation of all 3 panels forming part of the laminated “B” pillar structure and inadequate quality and insufficient mig welding to attach the replacement quarter panel compromising the integrity of the “B” pillar structure.
(2) The consequence of this substandard repair undoubtedly resulted in greater intrusion into the passenger cell when the vehicle was subjected to a severe broadside impact, which in turn may have increased the likelihood of the occupants sustaining serious injury.
(3) The evidence of ████████ Home Office Forensic Pathologist, indicated that the head injuries sustained by Sadie were the result of her head impacting against the intruded rear quarter panel and had this not intruded so much as a result of the collision then it is possible that she may not have sustained such severe head injuries and may well have survived the collision.
(4) Forensic Collision Investigator ████████ indicated in his evidence that in circumstances where there had been a category D write off, there were no independent checks undertaken on repaired vehicles before they returned to the road and that the MOT process would be unlikely to establish that the structure/integrity of a damaged vehicle had been compromised by a substandard repair .
(5) The above matters give rise to a concern that there exists the uncontrolled sale and repair of insurance write offs as a result of which future deaths may occur when previously written off vehicles are back on the road and involved in collisions.
” Open source report
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations