Wayland Farms Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company

Request correction

First report 3 Nov 2015•Latest report 3 Nov 2015

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 5
Stated actions: 5

Concerns and recipient responses

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

3 Nov2015
Norfolk
Concerns raised5
1. Failure to reassess work methods when the existing method is no longer viable
2. Lack of a health and safety culture at ground level
3. Failure to communicate and control whether a work method has been authorised
1. Failure to ensure that work methods are safe
2. Failure to ensure that employees select work methods with regard to health and safety
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Confirm safety-critical communications in writing when they are delivered.
2. Action
  Provide further management and worker training emphasising communication of safety information from managers to workers.
3. Action
  Complete behavioural safety training to improve decision-making when tasks or circumstances deviate from normal procedures.
AI-generated summary

PETER JOHN BUCKLE · 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

Peter John Buckle was injured at work when a post propping open a trailer tailgate slipped, causing the tailgate to fall. He was airlifted to Addenbrooke's Hospital and died later that day from his injuries. Concerns included the failure to reassess the risks when the original work method became unavailable and an apparent lack of a health and safety culture at ground level.

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 Wayland Farms Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to reassess work methods when the existing method is no longer viable
Wider context from the report
“(1) Although a risk assessment was in place for the original method of carrying out the task (with the telehandler and grab), once this method was no longer viable a risk assessment was not carried out or considered prior to steps being taken with regard to the next method under consideration, namely to throw the rubbish over the side of the trailer; in that the trailer was reversed to the rubbish site, a telephone call was made to 2 other employees to assist and protective equipment was being obtained. This left Mr Buckle to assume the work was to be carried out in this way, whether or not the Site Manager was of the view the method of work was still under consideration. In any event this method of carrying out the work was blatantly unsafe. (2) The employees left at the site of the rubbish, decided on a third method of carrying out the work, without any thought for health and safety. Although health and safety induction training had been undertaken and managers had received further training, a health and safety culture was not apparent from the evidence, particularly at “ground level”. ”
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 Wayland Farms Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a health and safety culture at ground level
Wider context from the report
“(1) Although a risk assessment was in place for the original method of carrying out the task (with the telehandler and grab), once this method was no longer viable a risk assessment was not carried out or considered prior to steps being taken with regard to the next method under consideration, namely to throw the rubbish over the side of the trailer; in that the trailer was reversed to the rubbish site, a telephone call was made to 2 other employees to assist and protective equipment was being obtained. This left Mr Buckle to assume the work was to be carried out in this way, whether or not the Site Manager was of the view the method of work was still under consideration. In any event this method of carrying out the work was blatantly unsafe. (2) The employees left at the site of the rubbish, decided on a third method of carrying out the work, without any thought for health and safety. Although health and safety induction training had been undertaken and managers had received further training, a health and safety culture was not apparent from the evidence, particularly at “ground level”. ”
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 Wayland Farms Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to communicate and control whether a work method has been authorised
Wider context from the report
“(1) Although a risk assessment was in place for the original method of carrying out the task (with the telehandler and grab), once this method was no longer viable a risk assessment was not carried out or considered prior to steps being taken with regard to the next method under consideration, namely to throw the rubbish over the side of the trailer; in that the trailer was reversed to the rubbish site, a telephone call was made to 2 other employees to assist and protective equipment was being obtained. This left Mr Buckle to assume the work was to be carried out in this way, whether or not the Site Manager was of the view the method of work was still under consideration. In any event this method of carrying out the work was blatantly unsafe. (2) The employees left at the site of the rubbish, decided on a third method of carrying out the work, without any thought for health and safety. Although health and safety induction training had been undertaken and managers had received further training, a health and safety culture was not apparent from the evidence, particularly at “ground level”. ”
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 Wayland Farms Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure that work methods are safe
Wider context from the report
“(1) Although a risk assessment was in place for the original method of carrying out the task (with the telehandler and grab), once this method was no longer viable a risk assessment was not carried out or considered prior to steps being taken with regard to the next method under consideration, namely to throw the rubbish over the side of the trailer; in that the trailer was reversed to the rubbish site, a telephone call was made to 2 other employees to assist and protective equipment was being obtained. This left Mr Buckle to assume the work was to be carried out in this way, whether or not the Site Manager was of the view the method of work was still under consideration. In any event this method of carrying out the work was blatantly unsafe. (2) The employees left at the site of the rubbish, decided on a third method of carrying out the work, without any thought for health and safety. Although health and safety induction training had been undertaken and managers had received further training, a health and safety culture was not apparent from the evidence, particularly at “ground level”. ”
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 Wayland Farms Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure that employees select work methods with regard to health and safety
Wider context from the report
“(1) Although a risk assessment was in place for the original method of carrying out the task (with the telehandler and grab), once this method was no longer viable a risk assessment was not carried out or considered prior to steps being taken with regard to the next method under consideration, namely to throw the rubbish over the side of the trailer; in that the trailer was reversed to the rubbish site, a telephone call was made to 2 other employees to assist and protective equipment was being obtained. This left Mr Buckle to assume the work was to be carried out in this way, whether or not the Site Manager was of the view the method of work was still under consideration. In any event this method of carrying out the work was blatantly unsafe. (2) The employees left at the site of the rubbish, decided on a third method of carrying out the work, without any thought for health and safety. Although health and safety induction training had been undertaken and managers had received further training, a health and safety culture was not apparent from the evidence, particularly at “ground level”. ”
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
Confirm safety-critical communications in writing when they are delivered.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Written Documentation:”

Source location
2015-0425-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 3 November 2015
Open published response
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
Provide further management and worker training emphasising communication of safety information from managers to workers.

Verbatim wording from the response
“This program called “stop and think” has been designed to help the worker understand the significance and importance of planning for key decisions’ when activities or procedures have a need to be amended due to a change in circumstance. The significant element of this program being the worker is asked to stop and contact their Unit Manager at the critical point; the decision and task planning is then carried out as a duel role with both levels of competence, the objective being to prevent the worker taking quick or hasty actions in an “act now, think later” way. Management”

Source location
2015-0425-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 3 November 2015
Open published response
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
Complete behavioural safety training to improve decision-making when tasks or circumstances deviate from normal procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Wayland Farms Limited has put in place new programmes to deal with health and safety since the accident. We refer to Page 2 of the Health & Safety Executive’s Fatal Incident Report dated 28th April 2015 in this regard (copy attached marked Exhibit “1”). A training program based around behavioural safety with the aim of improving the safety culture within Wayland Farms Ltd has been completed, this was a blend of theory and practice in both an engaging and thought-provoking way to enable smarter decisions and actions in relation to tasks and situations occurring that fall outside of what is expected to be the normal procedure or activity.”

Source location
2015-0425-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 3 November 2015
Open published response

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised5

Failure to reassess work methods when the existing method is no longer viable

Lack of a health and safety culture at ground level

Failure to communicate and control whether a work method has been authorised

Failure to ensure that work methods are safe

Failure to ensure that employees select work methods with regard to health and safety

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Actions described in response 3