Recipient

Paul Wainwright Construction Services Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 12 May 2021•Latest report 12 May 2021

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 Paul Wainwright Construction Services Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Steven James Oscroft · 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

    Steven James Oscroft was killed instantly when a piece of concrete fell from an oncoming lorry and smashed through his windscreen while he was driving on 7 July 2020. The concerns included the practice of mounding loads above the sides of tipper lorries and using sheeting systems that could leave material uncovered and liable to fall or be blown from the vehicle.

    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 Paul Wainwright Construction Services Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to load tipper lorries with loose materials below the level of the sides

    Wider context from the report

    “Paul Wainwright Construction Services Ltd Evidence was heard regarding the training and practices of loading tipper lorries at Paul Wainwright Construction Services Ltd. 1. Loads are ‘mounded’ such that in the middle of the load area, the height of the load extends above the level of the sides, whilst being below the level of the sides at the point at which the load contacts the side. Part of the load is therefore above the level of the sides, increasing the risk of items on the load falling or blowing off the vehicle. 2. Industry standard sheeting systems are in use which, when the load is ‘mounded’ in this way, causes the sheet to be drawn up. This results in part of the load being uncovered and liable to fall or be blown from the vehicle. 3. Such standard sheeting systems are not designed to be used on loads mounded above the level of the sides and cannot prevent ‘blow off’ from the areas of the load uncovered by the mesh. 4. Evidence was adduced of a number of loads on Wainwrights lorries which, because of the above practice, appeared not to be fully secure. ”
    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 Paul Wainwright Construction Services Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of sheeting systems to fully cover and secure loose materials on tipper lorries

    Wider context from the report

    “Paul Wainwright Construction Services Ltd Evidence was heard regarding the training and practices of loading tipper lorries at Paul Wainwright Construction Services Ltd. 1. Loads are ‘mounded’ such that in the middle of the load area, the height of the load extends above the level of the sides, whilst being below the level of the sides at the point at which the load contacts the side. Part of the load is therefore above the level of the sides, increasing the risk of items on the load falling or blowing off the vehicle. 2. Industry standard sheeting systems are in use which, when the load is ‘mounded’ in this way, causes the sheet to be drawn up. This results in part of the load being uncovered and liable to fall or be blown from the vehicle. 3. Such standard sheeting systems are not designed to be used on loads mounded above the level of the sides and cannot prevent ‘blow off’ from the areas of the load uncovered by the mesh. 4. Evidence was adduced of a number of loads on Wainwrights lorries which, because of the above practice, appeared not to be fully secure. ”
    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 Paul Wainwright Construction Services Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of mesh sheeting systems to fully cover and secure loose materials on tipper lorries

    Wider context from the report

    “The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency Evidence was heard regarding the manner in which loose materials are loaded and secured onto tipper lorries. 1. The above-mentioned practice of ‘mounding’ loads above the level of the sides is standard practice within the industry. 2. Mesh sheeting systems are commonly deployed in circumstances when the mesh does not cover all of the material being carried. 3. Mesh sheeting systems are typically not secured at the sides and are installed in such a way as to leave a small gap at the sides and a larger gap at the back. ”
    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