Recipient

Northamptonshire County Council

First report 3 Mar 2017•Latest report 9 Apr 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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

Reports: 2
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 4
Stated actions: 4

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 Northamptonshire County Council linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

9 Apr2018
Northamptonshire
Concerns raised2
1. Compromised visibility at the junction
2. Failure to establish a timeframe for completion of junction safety improvements
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Convert both junction approaches from Give Way to Stop controls through an identical scheme.
  Stated planned
2. Action
  Install yellow-backed warning signs and refresh road markings on the Sibbertoft approach.
  Stated planned
3. Action
  Introduce inaudible transverse rumble strips before the junction mouth on the Sibbertoft approach.
  Stated planned
AI-generated summary

Darryl Alfred Wayne Rego SOUZA · 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

Darryl Alfred Wayne Rego Souza died at the scene on 7 October 2017 from fatal chest injuries sustained when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a Mini at a crossroads in Clipston, Northamptonshire. Concerns included compromised visibility at the junction, the lack of a timeframe for planned improvements to signage and rumble strips, a recommendation that Stop signs be considered, and a further accident at the same location around one week before the resumed inquest.

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 Northamptonshire County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Compromised visibility at the junction
Wider context from the report
“1. Paragraphs 6.11 – 6.14 of the Forensic Collision Investigator’s report is set out below. 6.11 There is no doubt that the visibility at this junction is compromised by the road geography and as such high visibility “Give Way” signs and crossroads signs together with “SLOW” painted on the road surface serve to highlight the location of the crossroads and the need to take care. 6.12 In view if the visibility at this junction and after reviewing the Collision statistics at this junction there are to be some improvements carried out. 6.13 These improvements include renewing the signing particularly from the Sibbertoft direction and noise or rumble strips to be placed on the road again from the Sibbertoft direction. 6.14 At the time of writing this report, there is no time frame as to when these improvements will be completed. 2. Additionally, during evidence, the Collision Investigator recommended that the junction may benefit from the installation of “Stop” signs. 3. One of the witnesses at the inquest stated that there had been a further accident, at the same location, around one week before the resumed inquest date. ”
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 Northamptonshire County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to establish a timeframe for completion of junction safety improvements
Wider context from the report
“1. Paragraphs 6.11 – 6.14 of the Forensic Collision Investigator’s report is set out below. 6.11 There is no doubt that the visibility at this junction is compromised by the road geography and as such high visibility “Give Way” signs and crossroads signs together with “SLOW” painted on the road surface serve to highlight the location of the crossroads and the need to take care. 6.12 In view if the visibility at this junction and after reviewing the Collision statistics at this junction there are to be some improvements carried out. 6.13 These improvements include renewing the signing particularly from the Sibbertoft direction and noise or rumble strips to be placed on the road again from the Sibbertoft direction. 6.14 At the time of writing this report, there is no time frame as to when these improvements will be completed. 2. Additionally, during evidence, the Collision Investigator recommended that the junction may benefit from the installation of “Stop” signs. 3. One of the witnesses at the inquest stated that there had been a further accident, at the same location, around one week before the resumed inquest date. ”
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
Convert both junction approaches from Give Way to Stop controls through an identical scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Taking account of the recommendation in your report for the junction to be regulated by ‘Stop’ signs rather than the current ‘Give Way’ controls, our engineering experts have revisited the location to investigate the feasibility of a re-grade. This type of measure is governed by national guidelines and generally confined to junctions where, in the main, visibility is severely hampered. Our experts measured an available view of 95 metres to the left from the junction mouth. This is on the margins of intervention levels but will consequently provide justification for conversion to a ‘Stop’ requirement. We will therefore include this modification in the scheme. Furthermore, the opposing junction is similar in nature and characteristic in terms of available views and the obvious requirement to exercise care.”

Source location
Response from Northamptonshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2018
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
Install yellow-backed warning signs and refresh road markings on the Sibbertoft approach.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Soon after the incident our engineering experts attended this particular location and carried out a study of the minor road approach from Sibbertoft (from where Mr Souza emerged just prior to the collision). The current ‘Give Way’ road markings and signage are of regulatory standard. However, a scheme involving the implementation of ‘yellow backed’ signs and refreshed lines is now planned in order to provide an enhanced reminder for inattentive motorists to emphasise the presence of the crossroads and to approach with caution. In order to supplement the signage we will also be introducing a sequence of ‘rumble strips’ in advance of the junction mouth.”

Source location
Response from Northamptonshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2018
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
Introduce inaudible transverse rumble strips before the junction mouth on the Sibbertoft approach.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Soon after the incident our engineering experts attended this particular location and carried out a study of the minor road approach from Sibbertoft (from where Mr Souza emerged just prior to the collision). The current ‘Give Way’ road markings and signage are of regulatory standard. However, a scheme involving the implementation of ‘yellow backed’ signs and refreshed lines is now planned in order to provide an enhanced reminder for inattentive motorists to emphasise the presence of the crossroads and to approach with caution. In order to supplement the signage we will also be introducing a sequence of ‘rumble strips’ in advance of the junction mouth.”

Source location
Response from Northamptonshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2018
Open published response
3 Mar2017
Northamptonshire
Concerns raised4
1. Failure to identify vulnerable individuals living on campsites
2. Lack of knowledge about outreach service provision to homeless people
3. Lack of knowledge about statutory duties to house vulnerable individuals living on campsites
1. Lack of knowledge about available housing options for vulnerable people living on campsites
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

Vadims ALEKSEJEVS · 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

Vadims ALEKSEJEVS, who had been living in a tent after becoming homeless, was found unresponsive outdoors on 9 November 2016 and pronounced deceased that morning. The circumstances involved synthetic cannabinoid use, alcohol intoxication and hypothermia. Concerns included whether homeless people had access to outreach from adult social care or addiction services, the presence of other vulnerable people at the campsite, and the availability of housing options or statutory housing duties.

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 Northamptonshire County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to identify vulnerable individuals living on campsites
Wider context from the report
“4) It is not known if the campsite houses other vulnerable individuals, such as children or the elderly. ”
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 Northamptonshire County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of knowledge about outreach service provision to homeless people
Wider context from the report
“3) It is not known if adult social care or addiction services provide any form of outreach service to the homeless. ”
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 Northamptonshire County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of knowledge about statutory duties to house vulnerable individuals living on campsites
Wider context from the report
“5) It is unclear if there are any other housing options available or indeed if there is any statutory duty to house vulnerable individuals living on such campsites. ”
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 Northamptonshire County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of knowledge about available housing options for vulnerable people living on campsites
Wider context from the report
“5) It is unclear if there are any other housing options available or indeed if there is any statutory duty to house vulnerable individuals living on such campsites. ”
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

Compromised visibility at the junction

Failure to establish a timeframe for completion of junction safety improvements

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.3

Concerns raised4

Failure to identify vulnerable individuals living on campsites

Lack of knowledge about outreach service provision to homeless people

Lack of knowledge about statutory duties to house vulnerable individuals living on campsites

Lack of knowledge about available housing options for vulnerable people living on campsites

Actions described in response 3