PFD report

Natalie Ann Young · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Feb 2023•Somerset

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Lack of legal registration requirements for mobility scooters
  2. Lack of fitness and competence requirements for mobility scooter operators
  3. Lack of mobility scooter ownership records
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Action

    Support rollout of a nationwide certified powered wheelchair and mobility scooter assessment and training scheme through funding and collaboration with Driving Mobility.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 April 2023.

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 legal registration requirements for mobility scooters

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest the evidence revealed that in relation to mobility scooters there are: 1. No restrictions on those who are able to operate them; i.e. there are no requirements on the drivers to have vision to a certain standard; to evidence cognitive ability and competence to a standard to be able to understand the controls of the vehicle and how to operate them safely; to be within the acceptable drink drive limit of 80mg/100ml and/or not under the influence of any other substance. 2. No requirements for legal registration and/or record of ownership of the mobility scooter. There are many laws and regulations into the safe ownership and operation of a car or motorbike; i.e. there are vision tests, cognitive ability requirements, drink-drive laws etc, all of which are in place to ensure that the person in charge of a car or motorcycle is safe and competent and does not place those around him/her at risk of harm or death because of a failing below the acceptable standard applicable when in control of a mechanically (or electrically, in the case of PHEV or hybrid) propelled vehicle. It was, however, apparent on the evidence at Natalie’s Inquest that no similar laws or protections are in place for those who operate mobility scooters meaning that someone who is legally prevented from driving due to age, infirmity or other inability is freely able to own, use and operate a mobility scooter without any restriction whatsoever. The Inquest heard that the current legislation appears to distinguish between vehicles based on power and speed. However, as was evident in Natalie’s case, mobility scooters can reach a fast enough speed to pose a significant risk to the entire community and population but specifically, small children, pregnant mothers and the elderly who are all particularly vulnerable to being impacted at speed by a blunt-force object and dying as a result of the injuries that they sustain. I am concerned that the lack of regulation around mobility scooters will continue to result in further deaths, especially when there continues to be no regulation around those who are deemed fit to operate and use them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 fitness and competence requirements for mobility scooter operators

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest the evidence revealed that in relation to mobility scooters there are: 1. No restrictions on those who are able to operate them; i.e. there are no requirements on the drivers to have vision to a certain standard; to evidence cognitive ability and competence to a standard to be able to understand the controls of the vehicle and how to operate them safely; to be within the acceptable drink drive limit of 80mg/100ml and/or not under the influence of any other substance. 2. No requirements for legal registration and/or record of ownership of the mobility scooter. There are many laws and regulations into the safe ownership and operation of a car or motorbike; i.e. there are vision tests, cognitive ability requirements, drink-drive laws etc, all of which are in place to ensure that the person in charge of a car or motorcycle is safe and competent and does not place those around him/her at risk of harm or death because of a failing below the acceptable standard applicable when in control of a mechanically (or electrically, in the case of PHEV or hybrid) propelled vehicle. It was, however, apparent on the evidence at Natalie’s Inquest that no similar laws or protections are in place for those who operate mobility scooters meaning that someone who is legally prevented from driving due to age, infirmity or other inability is freely able to own, use and operate a mobility scooter without any restriction whatsoever. The Inquest heard that the current legislation appears to distinguish between vehicles based on power and speed. However, as was evident in Natalie’s case, mobility scooters can reach a fast enough speed to pose a significant risk to the entire community and population but specifically, small children, pregnant mothers and the elderly who are all particularly vulnerable to being impacted at speed by a blunt-force object and dying as a result of the injuries that they sustain. I am concerned that the lack of regulation around mobility scooters will continue to result in further deaths, especially when there continues to be no regulation around those who are deemed fit to operate and use them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 mobility scooter ownership records

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest the evidence revealed that in relation to mobility scooters there are: 1. No restrictions on those who are able to operate them; i.e. there are no requirements on the drivers to have vision to a certain standard; to evidence cognitive ability and competence to a standard to be able to understand the controls of the vehicle and how to operate them safely; to be within the acceptable drink drive limit of 80mg/100ml and/or not under the influence of any other substance. 2. No requirements for legal registration and/or record of ownership of the mobility scooter. There are many laws and regulations into the safe ownership and operation of a car or motorbike; i.e. there are vision tests, cognitive ability requirements, drink-drive laws etc, all of which are in place to ensure that the person in charge of a car or motorcycle is safe and competent and does not place those around him/her at risk of harm or death because of a failing below the acceptable standard applicable when in control of a mechanically (or electrically, in the case of PHEV or hybrid) propelled vehicle. It was, however, apparent on the evidence at Natalie’s Inquest that no similar laws or protections are in place for those who operate mobility scooters meaning that someone who is legally prevented from driving due to age, infirmity or other inability is freely able to own, use and operate a mobility scooter without any restriction whatsoever. The Inquest heard that the current legislation appears to distinguish between vehicles based on power and speed. However, as was evident in Natalie’s case, mobility scooters can reach a fast enough speed to pose a significant risk to the entire community and population but specifically, small children, pregnant mothers and the elderly who are all particularly vulnerable to being impacted at speed by a blunt-force object and dying as a result of the injuries that they sustain. I am concerned that the lack of regulation around mobility scooters will continue to result in further deaths, especially when there continues to be no regulation around those who are deemed fit to operate and use them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Support rollout of a nationwide certified powered wheelchair and mobility scooter assessment and training scheme through funding and collaboration with Driving Mobility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are also supporting the roll-out of a nationwide certified powered wheelchair and mobility scooter assessment and training scheme. Through our DfT Road Safety Research programme, we have provided funding to”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 20 April 2023

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.2

  1. 1

    Develop and publish a comprehensive mobility scooter and powered wheelchair user guide covering legal, eyesight and Highway Code requirements.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 April 2023.
  2. 2

    Write to mobility scooter retailers reminding them to promote consideration for pavement users and encourage customer training.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 April 2023.

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

Develop and publish a comprehensive mobility scooter and powered wheelchair user guide covering legal, eyesight and Highway Code requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department has developed a comprehensive guide for users of mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs, including legal requirements, eyesight requirements and relevant Highway Code information. It is available to view at: https://www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs-rules”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 20 April 2023

Open published response

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

Write to mobility scooter retailers reminding them to promote consideration for pavement users and encourage customer training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Letter to retailers from Baroness Vere”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 20 April 2023

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026