Recipient

Whitelock Plant Ltd.

Pin Request correction

First report 17 Sep 2019•Latest report 17 Sep 2019

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. 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 Whitelock Plant Ltd. linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Dr Jonathan Edward Ball · 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

    On 24 November 2018, Dr Jonathan Edward Ball died after his Skoda collided with a stationary 32-ton HGV on the A647 Stanningley bypass near Pudsey, Leeds. The substantive concerns related to the absence of advance warning equipment and emergency-service notification for the stranded HGV, and the limited visibility or resilience of its rear hazard warning lights.

    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 Whitelock Plant Ltd.; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of HGV rear hazard warning lights to remain working and sufficiently conspicuous

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The evidence of the other motorists on the A647 at the material time indicated that the rear offside hazard warning light was hard to see (or thought not to be working) thus giving the impression that the HGV was indicating to turn left (and thereby potentially confusing approaching motorists). In such circumstances there was no added resilience to the lights displayed, such as would have been provided by having duplicate indicator/hazard lights on the rear corners of the HGV. Given the arduous work of such vehicles and the propensity for the light to become dirty at the end of a working day, concern was expressed at the Inquest as to the danger which might be created in the event (a) the HGV broke down in a hazardous location and (b) the rear lights were not working or insufficiently conspicuous. ”
    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 Whitelock Plant Ltd.; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to train or instruct HGV drivers to report stranded vehicles to emergency services

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The HGV driver had not been trained or instructed to contact the emergency services to report the foreseeable hazard created by his stranded HGV on a dual carriageway at night. The HGV was there for some 41 minutes before the fatal collision occurred (although the Inquest heard evidence there were several near misses before then). It was likely that when a mechanic did arrive at the scene the HGV would have been there for a further period before it was repaired or could have been towed to a safe location. In consequence, the police had no opportunity to guard the scene, position safety barrier or warning signs to alert approaching motorists of the hazard. ”
    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 Whitelock Plant Ltd.; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of an HGV warning device for alerting approaching motorists to a stranded vehicle

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The HGV was not equipped with a device (such as a warning triangle) which the driver could have positioned some way before his stranded vehicle to warn oncoming motorists of the hazard presented by a stranded 32 ton HGV blocking one lane of a dual carriageway in darkness. ”
    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 Whitelock Plant Ltd.; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of duplicate rear indicator and hazard warning lights on HGVs

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The evidence of the other motorists on the A647 at the material time indicated that the rear offside hazard warning light was hard to see (or thought not to be working) thus giving the impression that the HGV was indicating to turn left (and thereby potentially confusing approaching motorists). In such circumstances there was no added resilience to the lights displayed, such as would have been provided by having duplicate indicator/hazard lights on the rear corners of the HGV. Given the arduous work of such vehicles and the propensity for the light to become dirty at the end of a working day, concern was expressed at the Inquest as to the danger which might be created in the event (a) the HGV broke down in a hazardous location and (b) the rear lights were not working or insufficiently conspicuous. ”
    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