Recipient

The Pipeline Industries Guild LimitedIncludes reports addressed to a minister or senior office-holder acting for this organisation.

Pin Request correction

First report 16 Jan 2024•Latest report 16 Jan 2024

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Professional membership body. 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 The Pipeline Industries Guild Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to: President, The Pipeline Industries Guild.

    Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Charles Harper · 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

    Charles Harper was struck by the unsecured tail end of coiled polyethylene pipe during dispensing operations on 27 April 2023 and died the following day. The principal concerns were that companies continue to dispense coiled pipe without securing its tail end, and that exclusion zones alone may not adequately protect workers from the unpredictable release of stored energy.

    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 The Pipeline Industries Guild Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to secure the tail end of coiled pipe during dispensing

    Wider context from the report

    “1. A material number of drilling and pipe dispensing companies have in the past, and continue, to dispense coiled pipe without the use of any method of securing the tail end of the pipe coil, contrary to trailer operating manual instructions. 2. The use of exclusion zones may be insufficient alone, and provide a false sense of security, to guard against the risk of a worker being struck by the tail end of a coiled pipe springing in an unpredictable way when stored energy is released at the final stage of dispensing. The trailer manufacturer in this case indicated – although their instructions make it clear the tail end of coiled pipe should always be secured to the trailer, and that clamps/straps were effective in preventing springing of the tail end of coiled pipe - an intention to do further testing around the forces generated when stored energy is released, the effectiveness of clamps and straps to restrain the tail end of coiled pipe, and consideration of cages being installed around trailers; This will take some time and will require collaboration with pipe coil manufacturers and pipe coil dispensers. The HSE indicated the facts will be considered by the relevant sector division who will decide what if any pro-active health and safety action to take; This will also take some time. It appears to me that a number of drilling/pipe dispensing companies who do not always seek to secure the tail end of pipe coil during dispensing, are likely to be members of either The Pipeline Industries Guild and/or British Drilling Association. Both organisations explain on their respective websites an aim is to improve the health and safety of its members. Both organisations are likely to be in a position to take action to alert their members to the risk. ”
    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 The Pipeline Industries Guild Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficiency of exclusion zones alone to protect workers from springing coiled pipe tails

    Wider context from the report

    “1. A material number of drilling and pipe dispensing companies have in the past, and continue, to dispense coiled pipe without the use of any method of securing the tail end of the pipe coil, contrary to trailer operating manual instructions. 2. The use of exclusion zones may be insufficient alone, and provide a false sense of security, to guard against the risk of a worker being struck by the tail end of a coiled pipe springing in an unpredictable way when stored energy is released at the final stage of dispensing. The trailer manufacturer in this case indicated – although their instructions make it clear the tail end of coiled pipe should always be secured to the trailer, and that clamps/straps were effective in preventing springing of the tail end of coiled pipe - an intention to do further testing around the forces generated when stored energy is released, the effectiveness of clamps and straps to restrain the tail end of coiled pipe, and consideration of cages being installed around trailers; This will take some time and will require collaboration with pipe coil manufacturers and pipe coil dispensers. The HSE indicated the facts will be considered by the relevant sector division who will decide what if any pro-active health and safety action to take; This will also take some time. It appears to me that a number of drilling/pipe dispensing companies who do not always seek to secure the tail end of pipe coil during dispensing, are likely to be members of either The Pipeline Industries Guild and/or British Drilling Association. Both organisations explain on their respective websites an aim is to improve the health and safety of its members. Both organisations are likely to be in a position to take action to alert their members to the risk. ”
    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