Recipient

Recipient name withheld

Pin Request correction

First report 29 Jul 2024•Latest report 29 Jul 2024

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. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    Scott Andrew PUNSHON · 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

    Scott Andrew Punshon, a 36-year-old man, was found deceased on the A689 near Howden Le Wear on 12 August 2023 after being struck by a car while lying in the road. A site investigation identified issues with road markings, signage and lighting.

    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

    Deficient road lighting

    Wider context from the report

    “On the 13th September 2023, on behalf of Durham County Council, you carried out a site investigation (Fatal Accident Report M7/R11/23) which identified issues with road markings, signage and lighting. You made recommendations that these should be addressed by the DCC Technical Services personnel. ”
    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

    Deficient road markings

    Wider context from the report

    “On the 13th September 2023, on behalf of Durham County Council, you carried out a site investigation (Fatal Accident Report M7/R11/23) which identified issues with road markings, signage and lighting. You made recommendations that these should be addressed by the DCC Technical Services personnel. ”
    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

    Deficient signage

    Wider context from the report

    “On the 13th September 2023, on behalf of Durham County Council, you carried out a site investigation (Fatal Accident Report M7/R11/23) which identified issues with road markings, signage and lighting. You made recommendations that these should be addressed by the DCC Technical Services personnel. ”
    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