Recipient

Lantra

Pin Request correction

First report 12 Jul 2024•Latest report 12 Jul 2024

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Registered charity. 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
7

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
7stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Rutland and North Leicestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Jason Vaughan HOLLAND · 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

    Jason Vaughan Holland, an experienced electrician, became trapped between a scissor lift and containment tray at a height of approximately 20 metres while working at Mercia Park on 10 February 2023. He suffered cardiac arrest and an unsurvivable brain injury, and died at Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham. The principal concern was that standard MEWP competence training did not include practical training or drills for rescue from height, including basket-to-basket rescues.

    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 Lantra; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of practical rescue-from-height training for MEWP operators

    Wider context from the report

    “I heard from a number of organisations within the construction and electrical industry and self employed trades persons. I heard that the industry recognised standard within construction for individuals being assessed as competent to operate a mobile elevated working platforms (MEWPs) is IPAF (International Powered Access Federation) whereby individuals undergo a one day course to be assessed as competent to operate a cherry picker/boom lift (3a) or scissor lifts (3b). I understand that there are a number of training providers nationally who run the course but that the syllabus is set by IPAF. Operatives who pass the course are issued with an IPAF card which is renewed every 5 years. As part of the course, I understand that operatives are classroom trained and then practically assessed operating the necessary MEWPs. Whilst the theory touches upon rescue at height scenarios (albeit having seen the syllabus it deals with potential falls from heights not entrapment). It does not include practical training on rescue at height scenarios or basket to basket rescues drills as standard. I heard evidence of the challenges that the organisations had found in sourcing a practical drill based course for at height rescue. All operatives I heard from working for a range of trades had their IPAF cards and not one had ever received practical training of at height rescue. They all told me that they had received theory based training only. I heard evidence that time is of the essence. For example in a suspension from a harness type scenario (not Jason’s case) between 5 and 15 minutes could be the difference between life or death. The same however can be said for someone who is suffering from positional asphyxia because they are trapped. I am therefore concerned to note that practical based rescue drills are not part of the standard competence based training offered for those operating these machines who are likely to be first on site facilitating rescues. Whilst Mr Holland’s case concerned the construction industry and the assessment of competency of operating MEWPs through IPAF, I understand that all of those organisations identified operate within their relevant sectors as IPAF does for the construction industry and MEWP operating competency based courses follow a similar syllabus, without any practical rescue from height drills being offered as standard. ”
    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

    Update and launch training materials highlighting personnel platforms fitted to telescopic material handlers as a rescue method.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For example, there will almost certainly be a Telescopic Material Handler on site, and these can be fitted with a Personnel Platform – our Lift Truck training course covers the use of this, and we will update our training materials to reference this.”

    Source location

    Response from LANTRA
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 September 2024

    Open published response

    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

    Enhance practical risk-assessment training by adding an assessment element requiring learners to create a rescue plan.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “However, we appreciate best practice is not always followed. Therefore, we will enhance our course to increase the practical risk assessment aspect for learners to consider the rescue means available relative to their employers’ premises.”

    Source location

    Response from LANTRA
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 September 2024

    Open published response

    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

    Update training materials to highlight RTITB’s specific MEWP rescue course once that course has been created.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Update our training materials to highlight a specific MEWP rescue course which is being created by one of our competitors (RTITB). This will be done once the course has been created.”

    Source location

    Response from LANTRA
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 September 2024

    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

    Basket-to-basket MEWP rescue training is not considered necessary because agricultural sites are unlikely to have two MEWPs.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Our primary sector is Agriculture, and as such it is very unlikely that sites will have two MEWPS, therefore training in basket-to-basket rescue will not be of great assistance, as such Lantra has not considered providing this training.”

    Source location

    Response from LANTRA
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 September 2024

    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