Recipient

London Borough of Barnet

Pin Request correction

First report 24 Mar 2020•Latest report 24 Mar 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Local government · London borough council. 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
4

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
4stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. North London

    AI-generated summary

    Sonny Bob Parmar · 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

    Sonny Bob Parmar, aged three, was struck by a car after entering the road near a Pelican crossing while walking with his mother, and died from his injuries at Whittington Hospital. The principal concern was that there was no speed limitation on the road adjacent to the school, unlike in other areas where traffic is slowed during children’s arrival and departure times.

    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 London Borough of Barnet; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of speed limitation on the road adjacent to the school during child arrival and departure times

    Wider context from the report

    “That there is no limitation for the speed of the road adjacent to the curtilage of the school as is seen in other areas where traffic is slowed at times where children are arriving and leaving the school. ”
    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

    Install vehicle-activated signs reminding drivers of the existing 30mph speed limit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We note that renewal of anti-skid surfacing on the approaches to the pedestrian crossing at the scene of the collision was undertaken over the weekend 30 November to 1 December 2019 and vehicle activated signs to remind drivers of the existing 30mph speed limit have been installed in April 2020. Work has also now been programmed to remove the redundant dropped kerb and provide additional guard rail panels at this location. This has taken longer than originally anticipated, but is now programmed to commence 16 June 2020.”

    Source location

    2020-0075-Response-from-Barnet-Council_Redacted-1
    Page 3 · response
    Published 9 April 2020

    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

    A reduced speed limit at this crossing is not considered appropriate because it is isolated from schools and one of several local pedestrian crossings.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We consider that introduction of a reduced speed limit local to this particular crossing in isolation is not appropriate given that it is only one of a series of pedestrian crossing locations in East End Road and elsewhere in the local area, all of which are situated a moderate distance from schools.”

    Source location

    2020-0075-Response-from-Barnet-Council_Redacted-1
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 April 2020

    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

    A signed 20mph limit cannot be expected to achieve adequate compliance on East End Road without additional measures, risking a false sense of security.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Where a 20mph speed limit is being considered the type of provision made is informed by regulations and guidance regarding the suitability of different approaches.”

    Source location

    2020-0075-Response-from-Barnet-Council_Redacted-1
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 April 2020

    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
75%25%
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