Recipient

Next of kin

Pin Request correction

First report 5 Oct 2016•Latest report 5 Oct 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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 Next of kin linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. South Wales Central

    AI-generated summary

    Colin George Wellings · 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 George Wellings was riding a domestically constructed three-wheeled motorised trike when he lost control entering a mini island, was thrown from it and died at the scene from serious head and other injuries. The concerns were that this class of vehicle was exempt from seatbelt and helmet requirements and that legislation should be considered to bring such vehicles in line with other mainstream mechanically propelled vehicles.

    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 Next of kin; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a legal requirement for riders of this class of vehicle to wear seatbelts

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The machine that the deceased was riding was a domestically manufactured machine with a 3.5 litre engine registered in 1973 and as such was exempt from the requirement for the driver/rider to wear either a seatbelt or a protective helmet. (2) Given the inherent risk that this vehicle, and others like it, pose, not only to their riders, but to other road users, consideration should be given to legislation to ensure that this class of vehicle is brought in line with other mainstream mechanically propelled vehicles by amendment to the Road Traffic Act and the Construction and Use Regulations. ”
    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 Next of kin; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a legal requirement for riders of this class of vehicle to wear protective helmets

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The machine that the deceased was riding was a domestically manufactured machine with a 3.5 litre engine registered in 1973 and as such was exempt from the requirement for the driver/rider to wear either a seatbelt or a protective helmet. (2) Given the inherent risk that this vehicle, and others like it, pose, not only to their riders, but to other road users, consideration should be given to legislation to ensure that this class of vehicle is brought in line with other mainstream mechanically propelled vehicles by amendment to the Road Traffic Act and the Construction and Use Regulations. ”
    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