Recipient

Recipient name withheld

Pin Request correction

First report 22 Sep 2014•Latest report 22 Sep 2014

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

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 Recipient name withheld linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Teesside

    AI-generated summary

    Jerome Antoine Marie GONNET · 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 2 May 2012, Jerome Antoine Marie GONNET was a passenger in a car involved in a head-on collision after a female driver travelled the wrong way along the A66 eastbound carriageway. Concerns included unclear advance signage for the no-entry slip road and temporary no-entry signs that could be knocked over and become unnoticeable; two further drivers reportedly later used the exit slip road in the same way.

    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of temporary no-entry signs to remain noticeable at the slip road exit

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) At present there are temporary large ‘no entry’ signs at the exit of the slip road junction which have, on occasions, been knocked over and subsequently rendered unnoticeable. ”
    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Continuing hazard of drivers entering the exit slip road

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) It has been brought to the Coroners attention that since Mr Gonnet’s passing a further two drivers have driven down the exit slip road, in the same manner as the female driver who caused Mr Gonnet’s passing. ”
    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of advance road-sign information identifying the slip road as no entry

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It is unclear in advance of approaching the junction that the slip road upon which the female drove is ‘no entry’ slip road. There is no information in this regard on the road signs surrounding the junction. ”
    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