PFD report

Imtiaz Mohammed · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Jun 2018•Birmingham and Solihull

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised1

  1. Lack of monitoring and testing of taxi drivers for compliance with drug-driving limits
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably detect illicit drug use
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Mandatory drug screening for professional drivers is not planned because police roadside powers address suspected drug or alcohol impairment.

    Stated by Department for TransportExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of monitoring and testing of taxi drivers for compliance with drug-driving limits

Wider context from the report

“1. Toxicology was obtained for the deceased who was driving the Taxi involved in the collision. This confirmed the following blood levels: Cocaine 0.010mg/l Benzoylecgonine (a cocaine metabolite) 0.40mg/l Carboxy THC 0.10 mg/l The level of the cocaine metabolite would have resulted in the deceased being over the legal drug driver limit. This did not contribute to this collision. However the Midlands Police raised concerns at the inquest that there was presently no system in place to monitor and check whether taxi drivers are over the drug limit whilst driving. They confirmed in evidence that some sort of testing was required for the safety of passengers. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably detect illicit drug use.

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

Mandatory drug screening for professional drivers is not planned because police roadside powers address suspected drug or alcohol impairment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the present time, there are no plans to introduce mandatory drug screening procedures for professional drivers. Police already have powers to stop drivers at the roadside if they believe that the driver is impaired by drugs (such as cocaine and cannabis) or alcohol and to charge them if they are found to be driving while unfit, through drink or drugs.”

Source location

2018-0170-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 8 July 2018

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Consider the Regulation 28 report as part of continuing Departmental work on drug driving.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 July 2018.

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

Consider the Regulation 28 report as part of continuing Departmental work on drug driving.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A copy of your Regulation 28 report for this case is with policy officials in the Department dealing with drug driving, and will be considered as part of their continuing work in this area.”

Source location

2018-0170-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 8 July 2018

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026