Recipient

Lightwater Quarries Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 31 Dec 2013•Latest report 31 Dec 2013

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
2

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
2stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. West Yorkshire (East)

    AI-generated summary

    ADRIAN JOHN PICKARD · 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

    Adrian John Pickard died at St James’s University Hospital on 26 February 2012 from traumatic injuries sustained when a company vehicle overturned while negotiating a bend. The vehicle was described as un-roadworthy and travelling at an inappropriate speed. The substantive concern was that not all company vehicles carrying aggregates were weighed before departing the premises, creating a risk that they exceeded their gross legal weight.

    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 Lightwater Quarries Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to weigh all laden vehicles before departure

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) That not all of the Company’s vehicles, which vehicles travel on the public highway and are laden with e.g. aggregates, are weighed on each occasion prior to their departure from the Company’s premises. ”
    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

    Continue weighing or spot-checking vehicles, including volumetric vehicles, before they operate on public roads.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are grateful for the extension of time to provide a response and do so in the following terms. There is no legal requirement for the vehicles quoted within the report to be weighed on leaving the site. LQL always weighs aggregate vehicles for trading standards purposes. That requirement does not apply to volumetric vehicles (as was being driven here) because there is no obligation to do so but more importantly no need to. LQL already uses its weigh bridge to spot check all of its vehicles including volumetrics as a matter of good practice and is satisfied that such practice is fit for purpose. That practice will continue and in any event it is of course open to LQL to check which every vehicle on every occasion before it is operated on the public road and that as it happens is indeed the current position.”

    Source location

    2013-0358-Response-by-Lightwater-Quarries-Ltd
    Page 1 · response
    Published 31 December 2013

    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

    There is no evidence that vehicle weight contributed to the collision or that weighing every laden vehicle would reduce future death risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Consequently, we respectfully disagree that there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless all vehicles are weighed every time when leaving the site, because there is no evidence to support that proposition and it is in context quite unnecessary. It is noted that the Coroner’s concerns are ‘that not all of the Company’s vehicles which travel on the public highway are laden with e.g. aggregates, are weighed on each occasion prior to their departure from the Company’s premises.’”

    Source location

    2013-0358-Response-by-Lightwater-Quarries-Ltd
    Page 3 · response
    Published 31 December 2013

    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

    Regular weighbridge spot checks, including volumetric vehicles, are considered fit for purpose and will continue instead of mandatory weighing before every departure.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are grateful for the extension of time to provide a response and do so in the following terms. There is no legal requirement for the vehicles quoted within the report to be weighed on leaving the site. LQL always weighs aggregate vehicles for trading standards purposes. That requirement does not apply to volumetric vehicles (as was being driven here) because there is no obligation to do so but more importantly no need to. LQL already uses its weigh bridge to spot check all of its vehicles including volumetrics as a matter of good practice and is satisfied that such practice is fit for purpose. That practice will continue and in any event it is of course open to LQL to check which every vehicle on every occasion before it is operated on the public road and that as it happens is indeed the current position.”

    Source location

    2013-0358-Response-by-Lightwater-Quarries-Ltd
    Page 1 · response
    Published 31 December 2013

    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