Recipient

Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum

Pin Request correction

First report 31 Oct 2018•Latest report 11 Aug 2021

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Trade association. 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
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 Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Adam Albert John Forrester · 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

    Adam Albert John Forrester was last seen leaving a nightclub in the early hours of 12 September 2017 and was later found dead in a recycling plant shed. His injuries were compatible with compaction in a bin lorry or other vehicle, and concerns were raised about single-crewed waste collection in darkness and poor weather, and guidance that did not require checking bins for people.

    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 Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Single crewing of the bin collection vehicle

    Wider context from the report

    “(1)The bin waggon had collected bins during the hours of darkness in apparently poor weather conditions and from an area vulnerable to vagrants. The vehicle was single crewed. ”
    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 Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the supervision advice document to include checks for persons inside bins

    Wider context from the report

    “(2)The WISH document, Effective Proactive Monitoring in Waste and Recycling Collection Activities document contains a checklist on page 5 of 8 and a section headed Public Safety at points numbered 20-22. This section makes no mention of kicking bins or checking inside for persons. This is dealt with in the WISH Guidance Document –managing Access to Large Waste and Recycling Bins but not in the supervision advice document. ”
    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 Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Bin collection during darkness and poor weather in areas vulnerable to vagrants

    Wider context from the report

    “(1)The bin waggon had collected bins during the hours of darkness in apparently poor weather conditions and from an area vulnerable to vagrants. The vehicle was single crewed. ”
    Open source report

  2. Oxfordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Stephen Buck · 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

    Stephen Buck died at a construction site in Thame after being struck and pulled underneath the wheels of a reversing vehicle while filling in tickets. The principal concern was the common practice of operatives working close to reversing trucks to issue tickets during spoil removal operations, increasing the risk of injury.

    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 Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to prevent operatives working in close proximity to trucks during spoil removal ticketing

    Wider context from the report

    “It is a relatively narrow issue but one that is likely to be relevant to many construction and waste industry sites in the country. There are issues about the use of banksmen/traffic marshals when trucks and machines are reversing and I realise that this is of course an activity involving a recognised risk. The narrower issue I wish to raise is in relation to spoil removal/muck away operations where there are potentially a large number of trucks attending a site and, in many instances, there is likely to be a requirement for the trucks to reverse thereby increasing the risk to others. I heard evidence that it is common practice in the industry for a ground worker or other operative to be given the task of issuing tickets to the truck drivers. I understand there are at least two purposes. Firstly, so that there is a record of the number of loads for invoicing purposes. Secondly, because the spoil is controlled waste and there is apparently a need for such a ticket. The result though is that an operative is often required to be in close proximity to the trucks. Clearly, it would be preferable if this was not the case. The issue of concern therefore relates to the apparently common practice for an operative to work in close proximity to trucks to issue the ticket. One might have thought that a different system involving technology could remove the need for this to occur. It would be helpful if you could give consideration to this issue. ”
    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