3 Nov 2015 PETER JOHN BUCKLE · Prevention of Future Deaths report Norfolk
View report summary
Concerns raised 5 Failure to reassess work methods when the existing method is no longer viable View source Lack of a health and safety culture at ground level View source Failure to communicate and control whether a work method has been authorised View source Failure to ensure that work methods are safe View source Failure to ensure that employees select work methods with regard to health and safety View source See 2 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
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
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
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
Open published response
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations