Recipient

First Essex Buses Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 22 Dec 2014•Latest report 22 Dec 2014

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Bus operator. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Percy William Gurton · 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

    Percy William Gurton was an elderly passenger on a bus who was propelled from his seat when the bus made an emergency stop and collided with the front interior. He died from the injuries sustained; the report raised concern that there was no barrier in front of the front right-hand seat where he was sitting.

    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 First Essex Buses Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of a barrier in front of the right-hand front seat of the bus

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The bus is so designed that there is no barrier at least in front of the front seat on the right hand side where Mr Gurton was sitting at the time. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Investigate with Optare the feasibility and safety of retrofitting containment to relevant buses.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “First is investigating with Optare the feasibility of retro-fitting some form of containment onto this type of bus which may help to prevent future deaths in circumstances such as those which occurred involving Mr Gurton. In principle, a technical solution may include not only a barrier but other possibilities such as handpoles. However, the risks associated with such a solution need to be carefully evaluated, as there is a possibility that an unintended consequence of any adaptation may be to actually increase the incidence and severity of passenger injuries overall in the event of a collision or emergency braking. Adding such fixtures to the interior therefore has to be considered carefully as it may introduce additional risk of harm to passengers rather than reduce it.”

    Source location

    2014-0546-Response-by-First-Essex-Buses
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 December 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unilateral containment modifications cannot presently be undertaken because they may increase passenger injuries or cause regulatory non-compliance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “First is investigating with Optare the feasibility of retro-fitting some form of containment onto this type of bus which may help to prevent future deaths in circumstances such as those which occurred involving Mr Gurton. In principle, a technical solution may include not only a barrier but other possibilities such as handpoles. However, the risks associated with such a solution need to be carefully evaluated, as there is a possibility that an unintended consequence of any adaptation may be to actually increase the incidence and severity of passenger injuries overall in the event of a collision or emergency braking. Adding such fixtures to the interior therefore has to be considered carefully as it may introduce additional risk of harm to passengers rather than reduce it.”

    Source location

    2014-0546-Response-by-First-Essex-Buses
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 December 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Technical bus modifications should initially be referred to the manufacturer rather than undertaken solely by the operator.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “first instance, issues of technical modification to buses should be referred to the relevant manufacturer by the bus operator and this is what First Essex has done.”

    Source location

    2014-0546-Response-by-First-Essex-Buses
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 December 2014

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026