Recipient

Incarace Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 9 Jan 2020•Latest report 9 Jan 2020

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
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

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.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Colin Alan North · 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

    Colin North attended a Stock Car racing event at Birmingham Wheels on 16 November 2019 to present trophies. He was struck from behind by a large tractor while walking on the track and died at the scene; the medical cause of death was multiple injuries from a road traffic collision. The concerns included a lack of pedestrian control, protected walkways and safe areas, and inadequate consideration of the risks to pedestrians and staff on the track.

    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 Incarace Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to control pedestrian access to and movement on the track during vehicle movements

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The TV recording of the event shows that as soon as the race is concluded the gate to the only entry and exit point is opened. Pedestrians (in using this term I include those working at the event and others) and several recovery vehicles then come through the gate. At the same time Stock Cars remain on the track some undertaking “doughnuts”. There are many pedestrians moving around the track area whilst large recovery vehicles are moving, some at speed, onto the track. There is a complete absence of control of any pedestrians onto and those already on the track. There is no pedestrian walkway on the track and no designated pedestrian safe area. There is a complete lack of awareness of the risk to pedestrians on the track who are in very close proximity to large recovery vehicles. Urgent action is required to review when and how pedestrians should be allowed on the race track at any time during a race event. 2. Urgent action is required to ensure pedestrians on the track have clear protected walkways and safe areas away from large recovery vehicles. 3. Urgent action is required to review the risk assessment document to ensure it adequately protects any pedestrians that need to be on the track. 4. Urgent action is required to review the prize giving procedure and to consider moving this to the “Public Area” as there appears to be no need for it to be undertaken in the middle of the track amongst moving vehicles. 5. Urgent action is required to consider the safety of staff working during the races and whether they should remain on the track given that they are completely unprotected should a vehicle in the race lose control. ”
    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 Incarace Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Prize giving procedure taking place on the track amongst moving vehicles

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The TV recording of the event shows that as soon as the race is concluded the gate to the only entry and exit point is opened. Pedestrians (in using this term I include those working at the event and others) and several recovery vehicles then come through the gate. At the same time Stock Cars remain on the track some undertaking “doughnuts”. There are many pedestrians moving around the track area whilst large recovery vehicles are moving, some at speed, onto the track. There is a complete absence of control of any pedestrians onto and those already on the track. There is no pedestrian walkway on the track and no designated pedestrian safe area. There is a complete lack of awareness of the risk to pedestrians on the track who are in very close proximity to large recovery vehicles. Urgent action is required to review when and how pedestrians should be allowed on the race track at any time during a race event. 2. Urgent action is required to ensure pedestrians on the track have clear protected walkways and safe areas away from large recovery vehicles. 3. Urgent action is required to review the risk assessment document to ensure it adequately protects any pedestrians that need to be on the track. 4. Urgent action is required to review the prize giving procedure and to consider moving this to the “Public Area” as there appears to be no need for it to be undertaken in the middle of the track amongst moving vehicles. 5. Urgent action is required to consider the safety of staff working during the races and whether they should remain on the track given that they are completely unprotected should a vehicle in the race lose control. ”
    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 Incarace Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Risk assessment failing to adequately protect pedestrians on the track

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The TV recording of the event shows that as soon as the race is concluded the gate to the only entry and exit point is opened. Pedestrians (in using this term I include those working at the event and others) and several recovery vehicles then come through the gate. At the same time Stock Cars remain on the track some undertaking “doughnuts”. There are many pedestrians moving around the track area whilst large recovery vehicles are moving, some at speed, onto the track. There is a complete absence of control of any pedestrians onto and those already on the track. There is no pedestrian walkway on the track and no designated pedestrian safe area. There is a complete lack of awareness of the risk to pedestrians on the track who are in very close proximity to large recovery vehicles. Urgent action is required to review when and how pedestrians should be allowed on the race track at any time during a race event. 2. Urgent action is required to ensure pedestrians on the track have clear protected walkways and safe areas away from large recovery vehicles. 3. Urgent action is required to review the risk assessment document to ensure it adequately protects any pedestrians that need to be on the track. 4. Urgent action is required to review the prize giving procedure and to consider moving this to the “Public Area” as there appears to be no need for it to be undertaken in the middle of the track amongst moving vehicles. 5. Urgent action is required to consider the safety of staff working during the races and whether they should remain on the track given that they are completely unprotected should a vehicle in the race lose control. ”
    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 Incarace Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of protected pedestrian walkways and safe areas away from recovery vehicles

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The TV recording of the event shows that as soon as the race is concluded the gate to the only entry and exit point is opened. Pedestrians (in using this term I include those working at the event and others) and several recovery vehicles then come through the gate. At the same time Stock Cars remain on the track some undertaking “doughnuts”. There are many pedestrians moving around the track area whilst large recovery vehicles are moving, some at speed, onto the track. There is a complete absence of control of any pedestrians onto and those already on the track. There is no pedestrian walkway on the track and no designated pedestrian safe area. There is a complete lack of awareness of the risk to pedestrians on the track who are in very close proximity to large recovery vehicles. Urgent action is required to review when and how pedestrians should be allowed on the race track at any time during a race event. 2. Urgent action is required to ensure pedestrians on the track have clear protected walkways and safe areas away from large recovery vehicles. 3. Urgent action is required to review the risk assessment document to ensure it adequately protects any pedestrians that need to be on the track. 4. Urgent action is required to review the prize giving procedure and to consider moving this to the “Public Area” as there appears to be no need for it to be undertaken in the middle of the track amongst moving vehicles. 5. Urgent action is required to consider the safety of staff working during the races and whether they should remain on the track given that they are completely unprotected should a vehicle in the race lose control. ”
    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 Incarace Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to protect staff working on the track during races

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The TV recording of the event shows that as soon as the race is concluded the gate to the only entry and exit point is opened. Pedestrians (in using this term I include those working at the event and others) and several recovery vehicles then come through the gate. At the same time Stock Cars remain on the track some undertaking “doughnuts”. There are many pedestrians moving around the track area whilst large recovery vehicles are moving, some at speed, onto the track. There is a complete absence of control of any pedestrians onto and those already on the track. There is no pedestrian walkway on the track and no designated pedestrian safe area. There is a complete lack of awareness of the risk to pedestrians on the track who are in very close proximity to large recovery vehicles. Urgent action is required to review when and how pedestrians should be allowed on the race track at any time during a race event. 2. Urgent action is required to ensure pedestrians on the track have clear protected walkways and safe areas away from large recovery vehicles. 3. Urgent action is required to review the risk assessment document to ensure it adequately protects any pedestrians that need to be on the track. 4. Urgent action is required to review the prize giving procedure and to consider moving this to the “Public Area” as there appears to be no need for it to be undertaken in the middle of the track amongst moving vehicles. 5. Urgent action is required to consider the safety of staff working during the races and whether they should remain on the track given that they are completely unprotected should a vehicle in the race lose control. ”
    Open source report
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

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

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
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