PFD report

Paul Littlewood · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 May 2015•South Yorkshire (Western)

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
1

Described in 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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Failure of the access-ladder fall protection to prevent falls
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of falls risks
  2. Lack of a toe-plate at the platform edge
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls preventing falls from platform edges
  3. Failure to provide an adequately protected gap in the fixed gantry barrier
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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

Failure of the access-ladder fall protection to prevent falls

Wider context from the report

“(3) The gantry was accessible by means of a fixed ladder. At the top of the ladder, fall protection is provided by a single cable which is set at a height well below 1 metre. It provides a pivot for a fall, rather than fall prevention. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of falls risks.

Open source report

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 a toe-plate at the platform edge

Wider context from the report

“(2) There was no toe-plate to delineate the edge of the platform ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls preventing falls from platform edges.

Open source report

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

Failure to provide an adequately protected gap in the fixed gantry barrier

Wider context from the report

“(1) The fixed barrier at the centre of the gantry was 1 metre in height, and there was no intermediate crossbar, leaving a gap of 1 metre, through which it would be quite easy to fall. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

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

    Continue providing members with guidance on assessing and managing vehicle-fall risks, including the Preventing Falls from Vehicles publication.

    Stated by Freight Transport Association LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 May 2015.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Cannot compel members to act because the trade association has no mandate to require member action.

    Stated by Freight Transport Association LimitedUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Continue providing members with guidance on assessing and managing vehicle-fall risks, including the Preventing Falls from Vehicles publication.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, we do recognise the concerns you have raised and we will, of course, continue to provide guidance to our members in relation to assessing and managing their risk, including our guide (formulated in partnership with the Health & Safety Executive) Preventing Falls from Vehicles. This publication can be freely downloaded at: www.fta.co.uk/policy_and_compliance/health_and_safety/workplace_transport_safety.html”

Source location

2015-0187-Response-by-Freight-Transport-Association
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2015

Open published response

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

Cannot compel members to act because the trade association has no mandate to require member action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“FTA is a trade association and, as such, has no mandate to compel our members to act. Therefore, contrary to your belief, we do have power to take action as described in section six of your report.”

Source location

2015-0187-Response-by-Freight-Transport-Association
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2015

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

Official responses located
1/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026