Recipient

North Lincolnshire Council

First report 9 Jan 2015•Latest report 17 Oct 2022

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Local government · English unitary authority. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 3
Published responses: 33%
Concerns addressed: 2
Stated actions: 1

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.

33%published responses found

1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

17 Oct2022
North Lincolnshire and Grimsby
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to establish the cause of highway water ingress and take remedial action
2. Failure to identify and remedy blocked drainage gullies
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  No further action is considered necessary beyond monitoring the highway under the Council’s existing inspection system.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
1. Position
  The water accumulation was an unforeseeable extreme-rainfall event, with no evidence of subsequent accumulation or continuing risk at the location.
  Disputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Adam David Simms · 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

Adam David Simms was the sole occupant and driver of a car that lost control after striking standing water on the A18 during heavy rain and collided with an oncoming lorry, causing fatal injuries. Concerns were raised about blocked drainage gullies, extensive standing water on the carriageway, and the absence of an explanation and remedial action to prevent recurrence.

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 North Lincolnshire Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to establish the cause of highway water ingress and take remedial action
Wider context from the report
“(1) I received evidence regarding the system of inspection utilised to identify and remedy any blocked drainage gullies. Two blocked gullies were found at the site of the accumulation of water upon the carriageway notwithstanding that an inspection undertaken only four days previously on 17 May 2021 had not identified those defects. They had not been included in cleansing works undertaken on 8 April 2022. (2) The evidence suggested that at around the point at which Mr Simms lost control of his motor car there were two separate patches of standing water upon the carriageway. They were said to be 62m in length and 36m in length respectively. They occupied the majority of the width of the Eastbound carriageway. Water was noted to a depth of between 10 and 15mm. There was plainly a significant quantity of standing water which posed a serious hazard to road users. (3) Whilst the evidence I received did not establish on balance of probabilities that those blocked gullies were the cause of the patches of water described above, no alternative explanation for such a significant accumulation of water was provided by the evidence. It had plainly rained heavily, although there was no evidence to suggest an exceptional downpour had occurred. (4) The absence of any explanation for this accumulation, and the consequential absence of any remedial action undertaken to prevent a repetition of these events gives rise to a concern that the highway at that location remains at risk of water ingress (from whatever source) unless and until the cause can be established and appropriate remedial action taken. ”
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 North Lincolnshire Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to identify and remedy blocked drainage gullies
Wider context from the report
“(1) I received evidence regarding the system of inspection utilised to identify and remedy any blocked drainage gullies. Two blocked gullies were found at the site of the accumulation of water upon the carriageway notwithstanding that an inspection undertaken only four days previously on 17 May 2021 had not identified those defects. They had not been included in cleansing works undertaken on 8 April 2022. (2) The evidence suggested that at around the point at which Mr Simms lost control of his motor car there were two separate patches of standing water upon the carriageway. They were said to be 62m in length and 36m in length respectively. They occupied the majority of the width of the Eastbound carriageway. Water was noted to a depth of between 10 and 15mm. There was plainly a significant quantity of standing water which posed a serious hazard to road users. (3) Whilst the evidence I received did not establish on balance of probabilities that those blocked gullies were the cause of the patches of water described above, no alternative explanation for such a significant accumulation of water was provided by the evidence. It had plainly rained heavily, although there was no evidence to suggest an exceptional downpour had occurred. (4) The absence of any explanation for this accumulation, and the consequential absence of any remedial action undertaken to prevent a repetition of these events gives rise to a concern that the highway at that location remains at risk of water ingress (from whatever source) unless and until the cause can be established and appropriate remedial action taken. ”
Open source report
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
No further action is considered necessary beyond monitoring the highway under the Council’s existing inspection system.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In the circumstances, we do not intend to take any further action at this location, other than ensuring monitoring of the highway in accordance with the Council’s system of inspection as set out above.”

Source location
Response from North Lincolnshire Council
Page 3 · response
Published 20 October 2022
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
The water accumulation was an unforeseeable extreme-rainfall event, with no evidence of subsequent accumulation or continuing risk at the location.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As noted above we have undertaken 3 wet weather safety inspections of the area on 15, 17 and 22 November 2022. There was no evidence of standing water identified during these inspections. We can only conclude it was the sheer volume of water, that was not forecast, during that month that contributed to the accumulation of excess surface water on the highway. There were no issues reported regarding standing water at this location on the day in question or prior to this incident.”

Source location
Response from North Lincolnshire Council
Page 3 · response
Published 20 October 2022
Open published response
1 Jun2016
North Lincolnshire and Grimsby
Concerns raised2
1. Lack of clarity about whether safeguarding notices require follow-up
2. Failure to act appropriately on safeguarding notices
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Terry Stapleton Latimer · 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

Terry Stapleton Latimer was found dead by hanging at his home on 27 May 2016, and an inquest determined that he died by suicide. A safeguarding notification submitted after police concerns was not acted upon appropriately, including a request to refer the case to Mental Health Services, with evidence of uncertainty about whether such notices required follow-up.

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 North Lincolnshire Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of clarity about whether safeguarding notices require follow-up
Wider context from the report
“The safeguarding notice was not acted upon either at all or appropriately. In particular a request accompanying the notice that the case be referred to Mental Health Services was not complied with. Evidence indicates lack of clarity in understanding whether the notice is just for information or should be followed up. ”
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 North Lincolnshire Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to act appropriately on safeguarding notices
Wider context from the report
“The safeguarding notice was not acted upon either at all or appropriately. In particular a request accompanying the notice that the case be referred to Mental Health Services was not complied with. Evidence indicates lack of clarity in understanding whether the notice is just for information or should be followed up. ”
Open source report
9 Jan2015
South Lincolnshire
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to record non-injury collisions on the local authority database
2. Inappropriately high 60mph speed limit on the B1192 through Brothertoft village
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Thomas Ian Hunt · 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

Thomas Ian Hunt died shortly after a road collision on 10 August 2014, after losing control of his vehicle on a wet road in Brothertoft. Concerns included the sub-optimal road surface, previous non-injury collisions not recorded on the local authority database, and whether the 60 mph speed limit was appropriate for the road through the village.

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 North Lincolnshire Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to record non-injury collisions on the local authority database
Wider context from the report
“During the inquest evidence was presented describing how there have been a number of non-injury collisions at the scene of the collision where Thomas died. These would not have been recorded on the local authority's database. The national speed limit of 60mph applies to the B1192 as it passes through Brothertoft village. Evidence was presented to the effect that a 50mph limit would be more appropriate given that the B1192, as it passes through Brothertoft, is bordered by residential properties and farm entrances. ”
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 North Lincolnshire Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inappropriately high 60mph speed limit on the B1192 through Brothertoft village
Wider context from the report
“During the inquest evidence was presented describing how there have been a number of non-injury collisions at the scene of the collision where Thomas died. These would not have been recorded on the local authority's database. The national speed limit of 60mph applies to the B1192 as it passes through Brothertoft village. Evidence was presented to the effect that a 50mph limit would be more appropriate given that the B1192, as it passes through Brothertoft, is bordered by residential properties and farm entrances. ”
Open source report

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 raised2

Failure to establish the cause of highway water ingress and take remedial action

Failure to identify and remedy blocked drainage gullies

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

Concerns raised2

Lack of clarity about whether safeguarding notices require follow-up

Failure to act appropriately on safeguarding notices

Concerns raised2

Failure to record non-injury collisions on the local authority database

Inappropriately high 60mph speed limit on the B1192 through Brothertoft village

Respondent positions 2