PFD report

Charles Albert William Pierson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Aug 2014•South Lincolnshire

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

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 raised3

  1. Failure to prohibit use of seat-belt clips producing loose and ineffective seat belts
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate vehicle occupant restraint systems
  2. Continued sale of seat-belt clips that produce loose and ineffective seat belts
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate vehicle occupant restraint systems
  3. Failure of opticians to inform DVLA of findings indicating drivers did not meet vision standards
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate driver licensing controls for road safetyPart of recurring concern: Unreliable DVLA medical fitness notification arrangements
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 prohibit use of seat-belt clips producing loose and ineffective seat belts

Wider context from the report

“Mr Pierson had one of these clips attached to his seat belt. This inhibited its effective operation and resulted in him sustaining the fractured sternum that led to his death. Whilst less common than they used to be these devices remain on sale and their use, to produce in effect, a loose and ineffective seat belt is not presently unlawful. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate vehicle occupant restraint systems.

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

Continued sale of seat-belt clips that produce loose and ineffective seat belts

Wider context from the report

“Mr Pierson had one of these clips attached to his seat belt. This inhibited its effective operation and resulted in him sustaining the fractured sternum that led to his death. Whilst less common than they used to be these devices remain on sale and their use, to produce in effect, a loose and ineffective seat belt is not presently unlawful. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate vehicle occupant restraint systems.

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 opticians to inform DVLA of findings indicating drivers did not meet vision standards

Wider context from the report

“A practitioner registered with the General Optical Council gave a statement to the effect that the deceased, when subject to an eye examination was able to meet the vision standard set for drivers by the DVLA. A review of his documented findings by DVLA staff indicated that was not the case. The DVLA opinion is that the deceased should have been informed by his optician to inform DVLA of the findings. This was not done and as a result the deceased continued to drive without a review of his vision defects by the DVLA. I should tell you that there is no evidence that his vision defects contributed to the collision that led to his death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate driver licensing controls for road safety; Unreliable DVLA medical fitness notification arrangements.

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

    Publish new standards defining expected behaviour and performance for registered optometrists, dispensing opticians and students.

    Stated by GOCStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 August 2014.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The fitness-to-practise case was closed without further action because the case examiners found it should not be referred to a committee hearing.

    Stated by GOCNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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 new standards defining expected behaviour and performance for registered optometrists, dispensing opticians and students.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Finally, you may recall that in my letter of 6 October 2014 I informed you that we were looking at the issues raised by this case from the perspective of our role in setting standards for the individuals and businesses on our register. I can now inform you that the new standards for individual registrants have since been published and are available on our website: https://www.optical.org/en/Standards/. These define the standards of behaviour and performance we expect of all registered optometrists and dispensing opticians, including students. It is hoped that by making clear what we expect of our registrants, these standards will have a positive impact on the quality of care provided to patients.”

Source location

2015-0366-Response-by-General-Optical-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 6 August 2014

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 fitness-to-practise case was closed without further action because the case examiners found it should not be referred to a committee hearing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When the case examiners consider an allegation of impaired fitness to practise against a registrant, they are required to apply what is known as the “realistic prospect test” in order to determine whether or not a matter should be referred for a hearing before the Fitness to Practice Committee. This is a two stage test:”

Source location

2015-0366-Response-by-General-Optical-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 6 August 2014

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