Recipient

Torbay Council

Pin Request correction

First report 17 Jun 2015•Latest report 15 Aug 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Local government · English unitary authority. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
2

Naming this recipient

Published responses
50%

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.

50%published responses found
1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Saleh Awadh Mohamed Al-Awlaki · 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

    Saleh Awadh Mohamed Al-Awlaki, a young student, was struck by a car on Great Western Road, Paignton, and died from his injuries. The report raised concern about the suitability of pedestrian railings between Paignton Railway Station and Bus Station to channel pedestrians towards the crossing and reduce vehicle-pedestrian collisions.

    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 Torbay Council; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Uncertainty about the suitability of pedestrian railing for reducing the effects of vehicular collisions with pedestrians

    Wider context from the report

    “Please review the suitability of pedestrian railing between the Railway Station and Bus Station at Paignton to reduce the effect of vehicular collisions with pedestrians ”
    Open source report

    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

    Pedestrian guard rails cannot be implemented at the collision location because the footway is required as a busy vehicular access.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Having reviewed the site in this case and taken advice from colleagues and from independent consultants I have concluded that the actual location of the collision in this case could not be considered for pedestrian guard rails, due to the fact that the section of footway is required for use as a busy vehicular access. The access is an essential feature of the footway to ensure that rail passengers who are either being picked up or require taxis for ongoing journeys can do so in a safe manner. There is also no evidence to suggest that this location is subject to regular dangerous actions by pedestrians and in this respect there would not appear to be any advantage in terms of safety in changing this arrangement to include barriers.”

    Source location

    Al-Awlaki-Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 August 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

    There is no evidence that barriers at the location or nearer the signalised crossing would prevent future collisions or improve pedestrian safety.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Having reviewed the site in this case and taken advice from colleagues and from independent consultants I have concluded that the actual location of the collision in this case could not be considered for pedestrian guard rails, due to the fact that the section of footway is required for use as a busy vehicular access. The access is an essential feature of the footway to ensure that rail passengers who are either being picked up or require taxis for ongoing journeys can do so in a safe manner. There is also no evidence to suggest that this location is subject to regular dangerous actions by pedestrians and in this respect there would not appear to be any advantage in terms of safety in changing this arrangement to include barriers.”

    Source location

    Al-Awlaki-Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 August 2016

    Open published response

  2. Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Andrew John Nickolls · 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

    Andrew John Nickolls was discharged from Torbay Hospital on 12 September 2013 and was later found by police officers in his flat after concerns were raised. The report identified concerns about information sharing and continuity of primary care for a vulnerable adult who may have been neglecting himself; the medical cause of death was unascertained and the inquest conclusion was open.

    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 Torbay Council; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure clear information sharing for vulnerable adults at risk of self-neglect when their primary carer is outside the Clinical Commissioning Group

    Wider context from the report

    “The principal learning point is to be that there is an advantage in a patient being looked after by a primary carer (i.e. a GP) within the Clinical Commissioning Group. If this is not the case, then it is imperative that there is clear information sharing, particularly where there is a vulnerable adult and there is a possibility they are neglecting themselves. ”
    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

50%
50%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