Recipient

Mining Remediation Authority

First report 24 Jan 2024•Latest report 24 Jan 2024

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Executive non-departmental public body. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 8
Stated actions: 6

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

6stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

24 Jan2024
South Wales Central
Concerns raised8
1. Lack of a specific water safety safety-equipment policy
2. Absence of signage warning of the dangers of deep and fast-flowing water
3. Failure to make public activity risk reports readily cross-referenced and accessible to safety inspectors
1. Failure to consider provision of equipment for rescuing members of the public in difficulty
2. Inadequate annual safety inspection content, format and decision-making criteria
3. Lack of a specific water safety risk-assessment policy
4. Failure to ensure completion of remedial works identified during safety inspections
5. Failure to provide inspectors with guidance for assessing safeguards against deep and fast-flowing water
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 5
1. Action
  Implement a Water Safety Procedure guiding risk assessment and decisions on signage, fencing, information and water-rescue equipment.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Give Project Managers authority to arrange immediate site repairs costing up to £25,000 without awaiting the budget process.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Enhance site-inspection documentation to require pre-inspection checks of prior risk assessments and safety observations reported through Authority systems.
  Stated completed
1. Action
  Operate the Public Safety Risk Assessment process to classify sites, prioritise visits proportionately and track timely recommendations.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Maintain a single system for recording, tracking, reporting and reviewing remedial works arising from public-safety inspections.
  Stated completed
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Existing hazard-reporting and online safety systems are considered sufficient to record, action and provide relevant public safety information to inspectors.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
1. Position
  Blanket installation of public rescue equipment is not considered appropriate because of vandalism, theft, misuse, limited effectiveness and potential encouragement of water access.
  Unable to act
AI-generated summary

Christopher Kapessa · 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

Christopher Kapessa, aged 13, was intentionally pushed into the River Cynon at the Red Bridge on 1 July 2019, became submerged and could not be saved after resuscitation attempts. The report identified concerns about inadequate water-safety policies, unclear inspections and guidance, a lack of warning signage and rescue equipment, and remedial works that were not completed.

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 Mining Remediation Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a specific water safety safety-equipment policy
Wider context from the report
“(2) No specific water safety policy relating to risk assessment or the provision of safety equipment was in place, or is currently in place. ”
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 Mining Remediation Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Absence of signage warning of the dangers of deep and fast-flowing water
Wider context from the report
“(4) Inspectors were not provided with any guidance as to how to assess whether members of the public accessing the site should be safeguarded from the risks of deep and fast flowing water, and if so how. No signage was in place to warn of the specific dangers of deep and fast flowing water. No consideration was given as to whether equipment to assist in the rescue of members of the public who may have got into difficulty, such as throw lines, should be provided. ”
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 Mining Remediation Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to make public activity risk reports readily cross-referenced and accessible to safety inspectors
Wider context from the report
“(1) The Coal Authority was aware that members of the public used the site for purposes including recreational walking. The Court found that the site was known by children as a site from which to swim, but that this was unknown to the Coal Authority. Nevertheless, Coal Authority documentation was not easily cross referenced or accessible to inspectors to ensure that any reports that might be made with respect to activities by members of the public who might put themselves at risk were available to inspectors when conducting safety inspections. ”
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 Mining Remediation Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to consider provision of equipment for rescuing members of the public in difficulty
Wider context from the report
“(4) Inspectors were not provided with any guidance as to how to assess whether members of the public accessing the site should be safeguarded from the risks of deep and fast flowing water, and if so how. No signage was in place to warn of the specific dangers of deep and fast flowing water. No consideration was given as to whether equipment to assist in the rescue of members of the public who may have got into difficulty, such as throw lines, should be provided. ”
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 Mining Remediation Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate annual safety inspection content, format and decision-making criteria
Wider context from the report
“(3) The annual inspections conducted by the Coal Authority were limited in content, unclear in format and identified no clear criteria to be used for the basis of decision making. ”
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 Mining Remediation Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a specific water safety risk-assessment policy
Wider context from the report
“(2) No specific water safety policy relating to risk assessment or the provision of safety equipment was in place, or is currently in place. ”
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 Mining Remediation Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure completion of remedial works identified during safety inspections
Wider context from the report
“(5) Remedial work was identified to remedy aspects of the site which rendered it unsafe, but were not carried out. No system appeared to be in place to ensure that such works were carried out following inspection. ”
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 Mining Remediation Authority; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide inspectors with guidance for assessing safeguards against deep and fast-flowing water
Wider context from the report
“(4) Inspectors were not provided with any guidance as to how to assess whether members of the public accessing the site should be safeguarded from the risks of deep and fast flowing water, and if so how. No signage was in place to warn of the specific dangers of deep and fast flowing water. No consideration was given as to whether equipment to assist in the rescue of members of the public who may have got into difficulty, such as throw lines, should be provided. ”
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
Implement a Water Safety Procedure guiding risk assessment and decisions on signage, fencing, information and water-rescue equipment.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As stated in the letter of the 17 January 2024, the CA was at that time developing a water safety procedure. This sits alongside the CA’s procedure on safe working near water. The CA’s overarching health, safety and wellbeing policy, safe working near water procedure and new Water Safety Procedure are all attached for reference.”

Source location
Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 3 · response
Published 12 February 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
Give Project Managers authority to arrange immediate site repairs costing up to £25,000 without awaiting the budget process.

Verbatim wording from the response
“There is now a system in place and a process to be followed which ensures that identified works are recorded, notified, remedied and reviewed, with Project Managers (who inspect sites) now having the authority to organise immediate repairs up to the value of £25,000 on their own initiative. The latter reduces the possibility that lower cost repairs, which would include additional fencing for example, can be undertaken more swiftly than if it had to go through the budget process and would remain in the immediate oversight of the inspector.”

Source location
Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 6 · response
Published 12 February 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 site-inspection documentation to require pre-inspection checks of prior risk assessments and safety observations reported through Authority systems.

Verbatim wording from the response
“At the time of the incident there existed and had existed for many years, a 24-hour hazard report line which enabled such reports to be received, logged and acted upon and there is no evidence, as became clear during the inquest, that such reports were received by the CA. In addition to this any observations made by CA staff (outside of formal inspections) or reported by the public through other channels are recorded through the CA’s online Health and Safety portal.”

Source location
Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 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
Operate the Public Safety Risk Assessment process to classify sites, prioritise visits proportionately and track timely recommendations.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As outlined in ████████ letter of the 17th January, a new Public Safety Risk Assessment (PSRA) process was introduced during July 2020. The PSRA, its associated guidance and the e-learning package, was developed by the Authority’s Safety, Health & Environment (SHE) team in collaboration with the Environment Agency and with good practice adapted to meet the specific needs of the Authority.”

Source location
Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 5 · response
Published 12 February 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
Maintain a single system for recording, tracking, reporting and reviewing remedial works arising from public-safety inspections.

Verbatim wording from the response
“This concern has been addressed through the reviewed Public Safety Risk Assessment process as mentioned above and in Paul Frammingham’s letter of the 17 January 2024 where in addition to a description of the new Public Safety Risk Assessment process, he states,”

Source location
Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 6 · response
Published 12 February 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
Existing hazard-reporting and online safety systems are considered sufficient to record, action and provide relevant public safety information to inspectors.

Verbatim wording from the response
“At the time of the incident there existed and had existed for many years, a 24-hour hazard report line which enabled such reports to be received, logged and acted upon and there is no evidence, as became clear during the inquest, that such reports were received by the CA. In addition to this any observations made by CA staff (outside of formal inspections) or reported by the public through other channels are recorded through the CA’s online Health and Safety portal.”

Source location
Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 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
Blanket installation of public rescue equipment is not considered appropriate because of vandalism, theft, misuse, limited effectiveness and potential encouragement of water access.

Verbatim wording from the response
“It is, of course, important that any such procedure provides guidance on assessing the viability of the provision of such equipment and does not simply create a blanket policy requiring the same.”

Source location
Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 3 · response
Published 12 February 2024
Open published response

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised8

Lack of a specific water safety safety-equipment policy

Absence of signage warning of the dangers of deep and fast-flowing water

Failure to make public activity risk reports readily cross-referenced and accessible to safety inspectors

Failure to consider provision of equipment for rescuing members of the public in difficulty

Inadequate annual safety inspection content, format and decision-making criteria

Lack of a specific water safety risk-assessment policy

Failure to ensure completion of remedial works identified during safety inspections

Failure to provide inspectors with guidance for assessing safeguards against deep and fast-flowing water

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

Actions described in response 5

Respondent positions 2