Recipient

R.J. Bateman (Engineering) Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 23 Mar 2016•Latest report 23 Mar 2016

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
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

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.

100%published responses found
1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from R.J. Bateman (Engineering) Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Alan George DIMBLEBY · 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 23 July 2015, Alan George Dimbleby died after a self-propelled crop sprayer became unstable and rolled down a steep slope, throwing him from the cabin. The jury found that the slope gradient and absence of a seatbelt materially contributed to his death. The report raised concerns about the absence of operator seat restraints on self-propelled sprayers and related HSE guidance.

    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 R.J. Bateman (Engineering) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    HSE guidance suggesting that operator seat restraints may not be needed or are inappropriate for self-propelled sprayers

    Wider context from the report

    “Operator Seat Restraint 1. Consideration should be given to fitting operator seat restraints to self-propelled sprayers. The cabin of the vehicle was such that it would have provided adequate protection to Mr Dimbleby had he not been thrown out of the vehicle. However, without appropriate operator seat restraints there is a serious risk that the operator will be thrown from the vehicle should it overturn and, as such, a safe cabin does not provide adequate protection. 2. Consideration should be given to removing self-propelled sprayers from the class of vehicles in respect of which the HSE guidance suggests that operator seat restraints may not be needed or are inappropriate [Agriculture Information Sheet 37 (revision1)]. ”
    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 R.J. Bateman (Engineering) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of appropriate operator seat restraints on self-propelled sprayers

    Wider context from the report

    “Operator Seat Restraint 1. Consideration should be given to fitting operator seat restraints to self-propelled sprayers. The cabin of the vehicle was such that it would have provided adequate protection to Mr Dimbleby had he not been thrown out of the vehicle. However, without appropriate operator seat restraints there is a serious risk that the operator will be thrown from the vehicle should it overturn and, as such, a safe cabin does not provide adequate protection. 2. Consideration should be given to removing self-propelled sprayers from the class of vehicles in respect of which the HSE guidance suggests that operator seat restraints may not be needed or are inappropriate [Agriculture Information Sheet 37 (revision1)]. ”
    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

    Redesign sprayer cabs to include seat restraints and fit one to every vehicle before it leaves the workshop.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “However, since I became aware of the circumstances of Mr Dimbleby's accident, I have changed the design of the cabs to include seat restraints and no vehicle leaves our workshop without one being fitted.”

    Source location

    2016-0120-Response-by-Bateman-Engineering-Ltd
    Page 1 · response
    Published 23 March 2016

    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 secure cab enclosure was considered sufficient to protect drivers without requiring operator seat restraints.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As I set out in my statement provided for the Inquest, there is no requirement for sprayers to have seat restraints. We have always focussed on making the cab enclosure as safe and secure as possible so that the driver is protected irrespective of whether they are wearing a seat restraint. In the report you acknowledge that the cabin of the sprayer was still intact and generally undamaged following the accident.”

    Source location

    2016-0120-Response-by-Bateman-Engineering-Ltd
    Page 1 · response
    Published 23 March 2016

    Open published response
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

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
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