PFD report

Corrie McKeague · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Apr 2022•Suffolk

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
4

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
9

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 raised5

  1. Failure of bin locks to prevent individuals entering bins
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls for people near waste-collection bins and vehicles
  2. Lack of automated recognition of unusually heavy bins
  3. Failure to provide and safety-check equipment for thorough and safe bin searches
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.5

  1. Action

    Continue discussions with other report recipients about bin design, locking, lifting and weighing systems.

    Stated by Biffa Waste Services LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 April 2022.
  2. Action

    Regularly review toolbox talks and other training on safely checking bins.

    Stated by Biffa Waste Services LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 April 2022.
  3. Action

    Review operating instructions to clarify viewing-window use and acknowledge when hopper checks may not be possible on some vehicle configurations.

    Stated by Biffa Waste Services LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 April 2022.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.7

  1. Position

    Refuse collection containers are governed by EN840 and are considered fit for purpose, rejecting the premise that their design requires further safety work.

    Stated by CONTAINER HANDLING EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS (CHEMDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 bin locks to prevent individuals entering bins

Wider context from the report

“1. Ineffective bin locks. The court heard that bin locks were designed to keep waste within the bin, keep inclement weather out, but were not designed to keep individuals out. The locks were described as not robust, and a determined or strong individual would get in. Due to their design the locks were also frequently broken. Stronger locks (such as snap locks) had been considered, but due to the risk of entombing (an individual inadvertently becoming locked inside a bin) stronger locks had been discounted. However, the choir heard there are currently no stronger bin locks available which would allow an individual to open them from the inside should they become entombed in a bin. There were 740 reported incidents of people in bins over a 6-year period (i.e. 10 per week), which are likely to be reduced if stronger locks are fitted. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls for people near waste-collection bins and vehicles.

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 automated recognition of unusually heavy bins

Wider context from the report

“2. Ineffective search of the bin. Despite the lifting mechanism recording the weight of each bin every time it is lifted, there is no automated/digital system to recognise when a bin is significantly heavier than it usually is. In this case the usual weight in the bin (based on an average of 13 previous collections) was approximately 15kgs. The bin weight recorded by the lifting mechanism on the dust cart was 116kgs. Such a significant difference in weight of a particular bin, is something that should be recognisable and should warrant a further check being completed. ”

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

Failure to provide and safety-check equipment for thorough and safe bin searches

Wider context from the report

“3. Any driver not having the means to search the bin thoroughly or safely. The court heard that drivers are now told to use a ‘push stick’ to allow a more thorough search of the contents of a bin. This instruction was not in place at the time of this incident. However, it was not clear from the evidence if the push stick is an identifiable piece of equipment on every vehicle, or if it is deemed as a piece of safety equipment, and therefore included in the daily safety checks of the vehicle. ”

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

Failure of lorry viewing apertures to provide usable hopper visibility

Wider context from the report

“4. Poor visibility through the Perspex viewing window on the lorry In relation to the poor visibility through the Perspex viewing aperture/window on the lorry two factors were identified: Firstly, it is physically impossible to undertake a check of the hopper mechanism on the Biffa lorry as the viewing aperture window is too high for this to be achieved by an average height driver. Secondly, on the six-year-old vehicle in question the Perspex had become opaque. A Detective Constable who had watched the lifting process to provide evidence of its operation for the court, described the driver as standing on tiptoes to try a check the vehicle hopper, whilst peering around the wing of the lifting mechanism. When asked specifically about the viewing window the officer said it was too high to see through and opaque. The officer told the court the viewing aperture was ‘totally useless’ as a means of checking what was being loaded into the hopper. Whilst viewing the hopper is impossible on the current vehicle, it renders the instruction for drivers to view the hopper prior to compaction (contained in the Biffa Operating Instructions for Trade Waste Vehicles) impossible to achieve. In addition, the automatic nature of the compaction process, also makes adherence to the Operating Instructions impossible on some vehicles, as compaction starts immediately the bin is tipped. ”

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

Failure of compaction processes to allow hopper inspection before compaction

Wider context from the report

“4. Poor visibility through the Perspex viewing window on the lorry In relation to the poor visibility through the Perspex viewing aperture/window on the lorry two factors were identified: Firstly, it is physically impossible to undertake a check of the hopper mechanism on the Biffa lorry as the viewing aperture window is too high for this to be achieved by an average height driver. Secondly, on the six-year-old vehicle in question the Perspex had become opaque. A Detective Constable who had watched the lifting process to provide evidence of its operation for the court, described the driver as standing on tiptoes to try a check the vehicle hopper, whilst peering around the wing of the lifting mechanism. When asked specifically about the viewing window the officer said it was too high to see through and opaque. The officer told the court the viewing aperture was ‘totally useless’ as a means of checking what was being loaded into the hopper. Whilst viewing the hopper is impossible on the current vehicle, it renders the instruction for drivers to view the hopper prior to compaction (contained in the Biffa Operating Instructions for Trade Waste Vehicles) impossible to achieve. In addition, the automatic nature of the compaction process, also makes adherence to the Operating Instructions impossible on some vehicles, as compaction starts immediately the bin is tipped. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls for people near waste-collection bins and vehicles.

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

Continue discussions with other report recipients about bin design, locking, lifting and weighing systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since your Report was issued, we have engaged with some of the other recipients of the Report to discuss bin design and locking, bin lifting and weighing systems. These discussions are ongoing.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 1 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Regularly review toolbox talks and other training on safely checking bins.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In our experience it is not always possible for our operatives to search the entire contents of a bin safely. The search of bins is typically limited to the top layer of the materials within a bin and this search may include the use of a push stick. As part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we regularly review our toolbox talks and any other training on the requirements for checking bins (which may include the use of a push stick where this is appropriate to the size of bin to be checked). Any updates and changes to these would typically be communicated by internal awareness campaigns for our operatives on the risks to people in and around bins and our safety procedures for checking bins to prevent injury.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Review operating instructions to clarify viewing-window use and acknowledge when hopper checks may not be possible on some vehicle configurations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the vehicle involved, the side windows fitted are to allow operator vision of the discharge of the container contents relative to the compaction mechanism i.e. the point at which container/mechanism physically approach one another. The windows have therefore been positioned to facilitate viewing of this operation, i.e. at eye line and/or above, rather than to check the contents of the vehicle hopper. We note the comments in your report, and we are reviewing our operating instructions to ensure there is clarity on how and when the viewing window is to be used, if one is present.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Continue working with equipment designers and suppliers to explore technology improvements that could reduce risks during bin emptying.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The existing bin weighing systems fitted to our vehicles record the weight of the bin after the emptying cycle has been completed. This involves equipment recording the weight of the bin before and after it is emptied to calculate the net weight of its contents. We have engaged with the designer of our bin weighing systems to establish the feasibility of using historical bin weight data to recognize if a bin about to be emptied is outside the usual range of historical weights recorded. They have confirmed that the existing weighing system does not have this capability. Any technology solution to achieve this will require a significant redesign of the weighing system and Biffa’s systems that hold the historical weighing data.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Remind customers to secure bins and, where feasible, store them in secure locations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The effective use of any locking mechanism is reliant upon customers using the locks and not overfilling the bin so that the bin lid can be closed and the locks used effectively. We will be reminding our customers of the importance of bins being secured and, where feasible, being stored in a secure location.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 1 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Refuse collection containers are governed by EN840 and are considered fit for purpose, rejecting the premise that their design requires further safety work.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The design & build of Refuse Collection 1100L containers/bins are not covered under CHEM Technical Standards, we understand these are catered for under EN840. The number of these containers in use the UK run into the millions and CHEM believe they are fit for purpose and serve our industry needs well.”

Source location

Response from Container Handling Equipment Manufacturers
Page 1 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Vehicle windows are considered adequate for their designed purpose of viewing container discharge relative to the compaction mechanism.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the vehicle involved, the side windows fitted are to allow operator vision of the discharge of the container contents relative to the compaction mechanism i.e. the point at which container/mechanism physically approach one another. The windows have therefore been positioned to facilitate viewing of this operation, i.e. at eye line and/or above, rather than to check the contents of the vehicle hopper. We note the comments in your report, and we are reviewing our operating instructions to ensure there is clarity on how and when the viewing window is to be used, if one is present.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Historical bin-weight recognition is not feasible in the near term because it requires significant redesign of weighing and data systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The existing bin weighing systems fitted to our vehicles record the weight of the bin after the emptying cycle has been completed. This involves equipment recording the weight of the bin before and after it is emptied to calculate the net weight of its contents. We have engaged with the designer of our bin weighing systems to establish the feasibility of using historical bin weight data to recognize if a bin about to be emptied is outside the usual range of historical weights recorded. They have confirmed that the existing weighing system does not have this capability. Any technology solution to achieve this will require a significant redesign of the weighing system and Biffa’s systems that hold the historical weighing data.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Existing locking mechanisms are considered effective when used and sufficient to secure waste and prevent unauthorised access.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We believe the existing locking mechanisms are effective when used and fulfil their purpose of securing waste inside the bin and preventing unauthorised access. However, we have engaged with bin manufacturers on the locking options available and our understanding is that they are considering alternative design options available to secure containers. Whilst there are snap lock options available (being locks that ‘lock’ on closure of the bin lid and then require unlocking), as you heard during the Inquest, these do present an entombing risk for any person entering the bin. Options to overcome this risk are being explored by the manufacturers.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 1 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Checking the vehicle hopper before compaction may not be possible on some collection vehicle configurations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our operating instructions will be reviewed to reflect that checking the vehicle hopper prior to compaction may not be possible on some configurations of collection vehicle such as the one involved in this case.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 3 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Operatives cannot always search the entire contents of a bin safely, so searches are typically limited to the top layer.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In our experience it is not always possible for our operatives to search the entire contents of a bin safely. The search of bins is typically limited to the top layer of the materials within a bin and this search may include the use of a push stick. As part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we regularly review our toolbox talks and any other training on the requirements for checking bins (which may include the use of a push stick where this is appropriate to the size of bin to be checked). Any updates and changes to these would typically be communicated by internal awareness campaigns for our operatives on the risks to people in and around bins and our safety procedures for checking bins to prevent injury.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Experts do not accept that stronger locks would reduce deaths because containers may remain unlocked and the lock may not determine entry.

Verbatim wording from the response

“32. Clearly this is not an isolated case. It is however not accepted by the experts that the number of deaths could be reduced if stronger locks are fitted. Bin crews and/or end users might leave the container unlocked. If a refuse vehicle broke down and therefore did not empty that container when scheduled, and the bin then became overfilled, an individual could easily empty a few bags onto the floor and enter the container. The lock would have served no bearing in that scenario.”

Source location

Response from BSI
Page 7 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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.4

  1. 1

    Continue efforts to reduce and raise awareness of risks to people in and around bins.

    Stated by Biffa Waste Services LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 April 2022.
  2. 2

    Chair the industry review of best-practice guidance for managing risks to people in and around bins.

    Stated by Biffa Waste Services LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 April 2022.
  3. 3

    Continue developing relationships with national charities supporting rough sleepers.

    Stated by Biffa Waste Services LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 April 2022.
  4. 4

    Raise the issue at the committee’s next meeting and discuss whether changes to existing standards are appropriate.

    Stated by British Standards InstitutionStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 April 2022.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.4

  1. 1

    The viewing window is designed to monitor container discharge, not to provide visibility of the tailgate floor after discharge.

    Stated by Dennis Eagle LimitedDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    Specific comments on Biffa’s operating instructions cannot be made because those instructions are unavailable.

    Stated by Dennis Eagle LimitedUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  3. 3

    Regulatory advice falls outside the functions of the standards body and is a matter for HM Government.

    Stated by British Standards InstitutionOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  4. 4

    Voluntary standards cannot be made binding on commercial waste-bin owners and operators or have compliance compelled and monitored.

    Stated by British Standards InstitutionUnable 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 efforts to reduce and raise awareness of risks to people in and around bins.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will continue our efforts to reduce, and raise awareness of, the risks to people in and around bins. We believe that our customers can actively support the management of the risk of people in bins by reporting to us any instances of people suspected or found taking shelter within or around bins at their premises before collections take place. Additionally, we are continuing to develop our relationships with national charities who provide support to rough sleepers. This will build on the existing arrangements we have with Streetlink, who we inform of any incidents involving people in and around bins, so they can initiate their outreach support services.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 3 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Chair the industry review of best-practice guidance for managing risks to people in and around bins.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a member of the Environmental Services Association, Biffa has, for many years, been part of the Wasta Industry Safety and Health forum (WISH), which involves all major waste companies in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive and manufacturers. Biffa is currently chairing the latest review of industry guidance on best practice for dealing with the risk of people in and around bins.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 1 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Continue developing relationships with national charities supporting rough sleepers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will continue our efforts to reduce, and raise awareness of, the risks to people in and around bins. We believe that our customers can actively support the management of the risk of people in bins by reporting to us any instances of people suspected or found taking shelter within or around bins at their premises before collections take place. Additionally, we are continuing to develop our relationships with national charities who provide support to rough sleepers. This will build on the existing arrangements we have with Streetlink, who we inform of any incidents involving people in and around bins, so they can initiate their outreach support services.”

Source location

Response from Biffa
Page 3 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Raise the issue at the committee’s next meeting and discuss whether changes to existing standards are appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“35. BSI will raise the issue once again when the committee next has a meeting to discuss further if any changes to existing standards would be appropriate.”

Source location

Response from BSI
Page 8 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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 viewing window is designed to monitor container discharge, not to provide visibility of the tailgate floor after discharge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Overall summary”

Source location

Response from Dennis Eagle
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Specific comments on Biffa’s operating instructions cannot be made because those instructions are unavailable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Operating instructions”

Source location

Response from Dennis Eagle
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Regulatory advice falls outside the functions of the standards body and is a matter for HM Government.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. BSI is not a regulatory body nor an enforcement authority. It is therefore unable to advise on regulatory matters, which are a matter for HM Government. Nor is it able to compel or monitor compliance with its standards, which are voluntary documents. As such, BSI has a limited ability to prevent further tragedies such as the death of Mr McKeague.”

Source location

Response from BSI
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Voluntary standards cannot be made binding on commercial waste-bin owners and operators or have compliance compelled and monitored.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11. The defining characteristic of standards is that they are voluntary, agreed by industry experts and users, including manufacturers, health and safety representatives, regulators and consumer groups. They do not have the status of legislation or regulation (unless specifically referred to in a statute or regulatory instrument, which is extremely rare though not unknown), although they may be used as one means of demonstrating compliance in appropriate circumstances. They may also become privately enforceable between individual entities by being incorporated into a contract (see paras 4.14 and 9.2 of BS 0).”

Source location

Response from BSI
Page 3 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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
4/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026