Moira FARNELL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Aug 2024•Milton Keynes

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

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

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. Failure to repair broken pavement
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair

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. Milton Keynes City Council

    Review inspection records and related actions following the incident.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Milton Keynes City Council

    Routine and responsive inspections found no actionable defect at the location requiring repair.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. Milton Keynes City Council

    The risk-based inspection code, routine inspections and responsive inspections are considered sufficient to manage highway safety at the location.

    Existing 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

Failure to repair broken pavement

Wider context from the report

“The deceased's family contacted the council prior to her death concerning the hazard posed by the broken pavement, but no action was taken to repair the pavement. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair.

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

Review inspection records and related actions following the incident.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Highway Authority immediately reviewed its inspection records and actions given the seriousness of the incident.”

Source location

Response from Milton Keynes Council
Page 5 · response
Published 30 August 2024

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

Routine and responsive inspections found no actionable defect at the location requiring repair.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Utilising our ‘code of practice’ and our qualified and trained inspectors, it was determined that in line with national guidance, during both routine inspections and the ad-hoc responsive inspections following the incident, that there is no actionable defect in this location.”

Source location

Response from Milton Keynes Council
Page 5 · response
Published 30 August 2024

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

The risk-based inspection code, routine inspections and responsive inspections are considered sufficient to manage highway safety at the location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The core of our local code of practice, as the national guidance, is that intervention criteria must be applied to justify actions. Routine and reactive inspections did not reveal any actionable defect(s) at Mentieth Close.”

Source location

Response from Milton Keynes Council
Page 4 · response
Published 30 August 2024

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