Recipient

Ford Motor Company Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 24 Oct 2019•Latest report 24 Oct 2019

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
3

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
3stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Berkshire

    AI-generated summary

    Catherine Gardiner and 2 others · 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

    Catherine Gardiner, Jason Aleixo and Lorraine McLellan died after a minibus carrying staff and students from Prior's Court came to a sudden stop on the M4 and collided with another vehicle on 11 October 2018. The reason for the abrupt stop remained unclear, although the investigation considered a vehicle problem more likely than driver input. The principal concern was that the DMF protection system could shut down the engine without recording a fault code, together with the need for further forensic examination of the vehicle by Ford.

    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 Ford Motor Company Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of incentives or penalties governing the duration of hard shoulder closures

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Is there any incentive to reduce hard shoulder closures or any penalty for prolonging these, beyond purely commercial implications? ”
    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 Ford Motor Company Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide fault codes when the DMF protection system leads to engine shutdown

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) In line with the view of Ford’s witness at the inquest, I believe that Ford should consider fault code provision when the DMF protection system leads to engine shutdown. ”
    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 Ford Motor Company Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of confirmed national oversight of the duration of temporary hard shoulder closures

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Please confirm whether there is in fact any organisation which has oversight of the amount of time taken for temporary closure of hard shoulders nationally, given that the relevant Order allows for closure to continue “until completion of the works”, with no end date. ”
    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

    Consider providing an engine diagnostic fault code to detect shutdown caused by the Dual Mass Flywheel protection system.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Further possible action You have made clear that you are concerned about a risk of possible future deaths. Ford shares that concern and as explained above is constantly working to reduce risk in all of its products. You have asked us to consider conducting a forensic examination of the vehicle and report the results back to you. You have also asked us to consider the provision of a fault code in the engine diagnostic system to detect when the Dual Mass Flywheel ("DMF") protection system leads to engine shutdown. We will undertake a forensic examination of the vehicle. We have therefore been liaising with the police with regard to potential dates and the police have in turn been in touch with and are co-ordinating practicalities with the other Interested Persons at the Inquest.”

    Source location

    2020-0350-Response-from-Ford
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 November 2019

    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
33%67%
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