PFD report

Mark Anthony Nicols · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Sep 2018•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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

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 raised2

  1. Failure to make an open pedestrian path safe and clearly usable
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable guidance and closure controls for unsafe pedestrian paths
  2. Failure to change safety arrangements after a similar circumstance
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 to make an open pedestrian path safe and clearly usable

Wider context from the report

“During the inquest, evidence showed:- You had a site cabin near the accident scene. The path was still open. However, it was likely to be unsafe to pedestrians as to whether the path could still be used. No signage or lighting had been installed to help pedestrians and I understand from evidence that if similar circumstance occurred again, you were unlikely to do anything differently. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable guidance and closure controls for unsafe pedestrian paths.

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 change safety arrangements after a similar circumstance

Wider context from the report

“During the inquest, evidence showed:- You had a site cabin near the accident scene. The path was still open. However, it was likely to be unsafe to pedestrians as to whether the path could still be used. No signage or lighting had been installed to help pedestrians and I understand from evidence that if similar circumstance occurred again, you were unlikely to do anything differently. ”

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

    Issue a Health and Safety Bulletin reinforcing compliance with the Red Book.

    Stated by Amey LG LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 September 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

Issue a Health and Safety Bulletin reinforcing compliance with the Red Book.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will be issuing a Health and Safety Bulletin reinforcing the need to comply with the Red Book.”

Source location

Response from Amey LG Limited
Page 1 · response
Published 17 September 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