Recipient

Northumbrian Water Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 2 Oct 2014•Latest report 2 Oct 2014

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. 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 Northumbrian Water Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Northumberland (South)

    AI-generated summary

    Darren William Thorpe and 2 others · 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

    On 11 May 2014, Darren William Thorpe, Gavin Thomas Bradley and Mark Thorpe entered the River Tyne in a kayak and failed to return; their bodies were later located downstream of Riding Mill weir. The inquest concluded that all three died by drowning in accidental deaths. The substantive concerns related to the weir’s design, the availability of a suitable upstream landing area with warnings, and other steps to prevent similar deaths.

    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 Northumbrian Water Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a suitable upriver landing area for exiting the river during heavy flow

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Evidence was given that on a previous visit to the River Tyne the men had exercised due caution in negotiating the weir by alighting upriver of the weir. It was felt that the most likely interpretation of the known circumstances was that the kayakers had been unable to exit the river because of the flow of water. Would it be feasible to construct a suitable landing area, accompanied by appropriately worded warnings, sufficiently far upriver to enable an exit from the river even at the time of a heavy flow of water? ”
    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 Northumbrian Water Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a canoe and kayak passage channel at the Riding Mill weir

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Evidence was given that in other countries within Europe, weirs are constructed with a specific channel to allow the passage of canoes and kayaks without encountering the tow back, or stopper, caused by the anti-scour sill at the foot of the weir. Would it be feasible to amend the design of the Riding Mill weir to incorporate such a channel? ”
    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 Northumbrian Water Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of appropriately worded warnings about river exit conditions

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Evidence was given that on a previous visit to the River Tyne the men had exercised due caution in negotiating the weir by alighting upriver of the weir. It was felt that the most likely interpretation of the known circumstances was that the kayakers had been unable to exit the river because of the flow of water. Would it be feasible to construct a suitable landing area, accompanied by appropriately worded warnings, sufficiently far upriver to enable an exit from the river even at the time of a heavy flow of water? ”
    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