Leonardo Cardoso Machado · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Dec 2025•Dorset

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
5

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 5 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in 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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Children working alone at night delivering to private homes
  2. Risk of road traffic collisions involving children working at night on powered two-wheeled vehicles
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to protect underage food-delivery riders from road traffic collisions
  3. Lack of oversight of the rental of food delivery licences to children under 18

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Health and Safety Executive

    Update and publish joint guidance on driving and riding safely for work.

  2. Health and Safety Executive

    Publish and maintain high-level guidance on employing young people under 18.

  3. Health and Safety Executive

    Provide guidance addressing risks, training, supervision, monitoring and support for lone workers.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Health and Safety Executive

    Practical limits constrain measures addressing lone working in delivery driving because the work inherently involves solo, deadline-driven and often nighttime activity with road risks.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. Health and Safety Executive

    Child-employment restrictions do not apply to a 17-year-old classified as a young worker.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  3. Health and Safety Executive

    The Department for Business and Trade is the more appropriate government body for concerns about renting food-delivery licences to under-18s.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  4. Health and Safety Executive

    Sharing permits is a contractual issue over which HSE has no control.

    Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  5. Health and Safety Executive

    Road traffic accidents are generally for the police to investigate and enforce rather than HSE.

    Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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

Children working alone at night delivering to private homes

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. There is significant national concern about the “rental” of food delivery licences to under 18s. In general terms, food delivery platforms place age restrictions on those who can obtain a licence to deliver food. However, there appears to be no oversight of the rental of these licences to those under the age limit. This places children in a vulnerable position: lone working, often at night, riding electric or motorised scooters, mopeds or motorcycles and delivering to individuals that are not known to the drivers. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. There appears to be no or limited oversight of the practice of “renting” a food delivery licence to children under 18 years of age, which I hear is a national issue; ii. As a consequence, children are working in the food delivery economy, which involves lone working at night, with deliveries being made to the home addresses of private individuals, placing the children in a vulnerable position; iii. That placing a child in a lone working environment at night and on the roads on electric or motorised scooters, mopeds or motorcycles also increases the risks of them coming to harm through a road traffic collision, leading to a risk of death. ”

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

Risk of road traffic collisions involving children working at night on powered two-wheeled vehicles

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. There is significant national concern about the “rental” of food delivery licences to under 18s. In general terms, food delivery platforms place age restrictions on those who can obtain a licence to deliver food. However, there appears to be no oversight of the rental of these licences to those under the age limit. This places children in a vulnerable position: lone working, often at night, riding electric or motorised scooters, mopeds or motorcycles and delivering to individuals that are not known to the drivers. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. There appears to be no or limited oversight of the practice of “renting” a food delivery licence to children under 18 years of age, which I hear is a national issue; ii. As a consequence, children are working in the food delivery economy, which involves lone working at night, with deliveries being made to the home addresses of private individuals, placing the children in a vulnerable position; iii. That placing a child in a lone working environment at night and on the roads on electric or motorised scooters, mopeds or motorcycles also increases the risks of them coming to harm through a road traffic collision, leading to a risk of death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to protect underage food-delivery riders from road traffic collisions.

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 oversight of the rental of food delivery licences to children under 18

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. There is significant national concern about the “rental” of food delivery licences to under 18s. In general terms, food delivery platforms place age restrictions on those who can obtain a licence to deliver food. However, there appears to be no oversight of the rental of these licences to those under the age limit. This places children in a vulnerable position: lone working, often at night, riding electric or motorised scooters, mopeds or motorcycles and delivering to individuals that are not known to the drivers. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. There appears to be no or limited oversight of the practice of “renting” a food delivery licence to children under 18 years of age, which I hear is a national issue; ii. As a consequence, children are working in the food delivery economy, which involves lone working at night, with deliveries being made to the home addresses of private individuals, placing the children in a vulnerable position; iii. That placing a child in a lone working environment at night and on the roads on electric or motorised scooters, mopeds or motorcycles also increases the risks of them coming to harm through a road traffic collision, leading to a risk of death. ”

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

Update and publish joint guidance on driving and riding safely for work.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department for Transport (DfT) commented that the safety of anyone driving or riding on our roads is a priority, and that includes those who drive for work. The government expects that employers or engagers of anyone driving or riding for work to ensure that they are as safe as possible on our roads. DfT worked closely with the HSE to update the joint DfT/HSE guidance on work related road safety. The revised guidance, published in September 2021 and called Driving and riding safely for work, clearly sets out what commercial organisations and their workers, whether employees”

Source location

Response from HSE & Gov Dept
Page 1 · response
Published 8 December 2025

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

Publish and maintain high-level guidance on employing young people under 18.

Verbatim wording from the response

“HSE has some high-level guidance on the employment of young people under the age of 18: Young people at work: Overview - HSE. The Department for Education state that the restrictions on child employment in the Children and Young Person’s Act 1933 apply to children who are of compulsory school age. Therefore, these restrictions would not apply in the case of Leonardo Cardoso Machado who, as a 17-year-old, would be classed as a ‘young worker’.”

Source location

Response from HSE & Gov Dept
Page 2 · response
Published 8 December 2025

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

Provide guidance addressing risks, training, supervision, monitoring and support for lone workers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is well known and established that lone working can present a risk to workers, and this should form part of an employer’s risk assessment. This includes the requirement to assess risks and should consider ways in which the work can be organised to minimise the potential for harm. Relevant training, supervision, monitoring and support should be provided for lone workers. HSE specifically considers lone workers in providing guidance and this covers both the employers of lone workers and the lone workers themselves; Lone working - HSE.”

Source location

Response from HSE & Gov Dept
Page 3 · response
Published 8 December 2025

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

Practical limits constrain measures addressing lone working in delivery driving because the work inherently involves solo, deadline-driven and often nighttime activity with road risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, HSE acknowledges that there are practical limits to what can be done in the driver delivery sector because work like this inevitably involves working alone, to deadlines, often at night and with the attendant road risks.”

Source location

Response from HSE & Gov Dept
Page 3 · response
Published 8 December 2025

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

Child-employment restrictions do not apply to a 17-year-old classified as a young worker.

Verbatim wording from the response

“HSE has some high-level guidance on the employment of young people under the age of 18: Young people at work: Overview - HSE. The Department for Education state that the restrictions on child employment in the Children and Young Person’s Act 1933 apply to children who are of compulsory school age. Therefore, these restrictions would not apply in the case of Leonardo Cardoso Machado who, as a 17-year-old, would be classed as a ‘young worker’.”

Source location

Response from HSE & Gov Dept
Page 2 · response
Published 8 December 2025

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 Department for Business and Trade is the more appropriate government body for concerns about renting food-delivery licences to under-18s.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) are the more appropriate governmental body, and they have addressed the practice of “renting” food delivery licences to under 18’s and the concerns that this raises.”

Source location

Response from HSE & Gov Dept
Page 2 · response
Published 8 December 2025

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

Sharing permits is a contractual issue over which HSE has no control.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The sharing of permits between licence owners and “substitutes” is a contractual issue and not an area HSE has any control over.”

Source location

Response from HSE & Gov Dept
Page 2 · response
Published 8 December 2025

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

Road traffic accidents are generally for the police to investigate and enforce rather than HSE.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In respect of the road traffic accident itself, HSE views that road traffic accidents are generally a matter for the Police to investigate and enforce, rather than HSE, using the most applicable legislation. This is set out in Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 - Section 3.”

Source location

Response from HSE & Gov Dept
Page 1 · response
Published 8 December 2025

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
1/5

Data last updated 7 September 2026