Recipient

Pluteus Limited

First report 23 Jul 2015•Latest report 23 Jul 2015

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
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 3
Stated actions: 3

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

3stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

23 Jul2015
Cumbria
Concerns raised3
1. Failure of the after-hours boat-entry system to provide reliable crew access
2. Failure to manage additional shifts to prevent crew fatigue
3. Failure to maintain accurate records of crew work patterns and hours
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
  Implement a 24-hour watch system when the owner or guests are aboard.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Install and operate a personal-code keyless entry system for crew access to the vessel.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Issue a Captain’s Standing Order establishing procedures to monitor working hours and rest periods and prevent additional work without requisite rest, except during safety emergencies.
  Stated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The keyless entry system, backup call-in arrangements and 24-hour watch when guests are aboard adequately address the need for crew access keys.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Michael Robert Hanlon · 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

Michael Robert Hanlon, a deckhand on a luxury boat, had worked a night watch and the whole of 6 April 2013 without rest or sleep. After returning to the boat at about 11.30 p.m., he was seen on board and later fell from the upper deck, hit the quay and drowned in the harbour. The concerns included difficulties crew members faced entering the boat after 10.00 p.m., possible tiredness from additional shifts, and discrepancies between the deceased’s work pattern and the shift rota and timesheet.

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 Pluteus Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of the after-hours boat-entry system to provide reliable crew access
Wider context from the report
“During the Inquest it became apparent that members of the crew had failed to gain entry to the boat on returning from on shore. One crewmember had slept on deck. I also concluded one crewmember had attempted to climb through a doorway on the upper deck near to the position where the deceased had fallen. There was a possibility, but no finding was made, that the deceased may have been endeavouring to enter the boat by this route when he fell. I also concluded crewmembers and in this case the deceased were likely to have been asked to work additional shifts when the boat came in to port, potentially causing tiredness amongst crewmembers. Further the deceased’s work pattern did not match the shift rota and his time sheet was not made up to the time of his last shift. The system for entering the boat after 10.00p.m involved certain members of the crew having a key, but otherwise requiring knowledge of a key code to obtain a key from a box situated at the front of the boat. The key could then be taken to the entry door at the rear of the boat, a door opened and then the key returned to the front of the boat in to the key box before the crewmember would then enter the open door. ”
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 Pluteus Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to manage additional shifts to prevent crew fatigue
Wider context from the report
“I also concluded crewmembers and in this case the deceased were likely to have been asked to work additional shifts when the boat came in to port, potentially causing tiredness amongst crewmembers. Further the deceased’s work pattern did not match the shift rota and his time sheet was not made up to the time of his last shift. ”
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 Pluteus Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to maintain accurate records of crew work patterns and hours
Wider context from the report
“I also concluded crewmembers and in this case the deceased were likely to have been asked to work additional shifts when the boat came in to port, potentially causing tiredness amongst crewmembers. Further the deceased’s work pattern did not match the shift rota and his time sheet was not made up to the time of his last shift. ”
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
Implement a 24-hour watch system when the owner or guests are aboard.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Please also note that a 24 hour watch system is implemented in place of the keyless entry when the owner or guests are on board.”

Source location
2015-0294-Response-by-Pluteus-Limited
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2015
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 and operate a personal-code keyless entry system for crew access to the vessel.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As part of a refit programme, commencing in 2014, a new, “keyless”, entry system has now been installed (after some delays, in summer 2015) on board Faith whereby each crew member or arrival is issued with a personal access code (rather like a cash withdrawal PIN code), which they can choose themselves (thus making it more memorable), which is unique and personal to them and which should be kept confidential. This has removed the need for keys, which is the common form of access in yachts of Faith’s age.”

Source location
2015-0294-Response-by-Pluteus-Limited
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2015
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
Issue a Captain’s Standing Order establishing procedures to monitor working hours and rest periods and prevent additional work without requisite rest, except during safety emergencies.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In connection with the Second Action, a system of recording working hours and hours of rest is and has always been in place as per International Maritime Organisation and International Labour Organisation requirements. Given the concerns you have identified in the PFD, steps will be taken by the Captain by means of a Captain’s Standing Order to ensure appropriate procedures are put in place to monitor those working hours and to ensure that crew members are not working additional hours without the requisite rest periods, in particular between shifts, unless the safety of the boat, crew and passengers is in danger. The Captain’s Standing order is to be issued in the week beginning 31st August 2015.”

Source location
2015-0294-Response-by-Pluteus-Limited
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2015
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 keyless entry system, backup call-in arrangements and 24-hour watch when guests are aboard adequately address the need for crew access keys.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In connection with the First Action, Wright Maritime and the Captain have both commented that providing keys to seafarers for access outside of hours has proven to be unreliable, unsatisfactory and impossible to control, particularly because keys can be lost or forgotten. This can potentially lead to problems with access”

Source location
2015-0294-Response-by-Pluteus-Limited
Page 1 · response
Published 23 July 2015
Open published response

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 raised3

Failure of the after-hours boat-entry system to provide reliable crew access

Failure to manage additional shifts to prevent crew fatigue

Failure to maintain accurate records of crew work patterns and hours

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

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 1