PFD report

Katherine Tracey Vanloo · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Sep 2017•Warwickshire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
9

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 raised5

  1. Lack of formal auditing of pothole repair completion and quality
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair
  2. Delays in raising and transmitting pothole repair works orders
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure identified safety remedial works are completedPart of recurring concern: Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair
  3. Delays in completing pothole repairs
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair
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.6

  1. Action

    Capture inspected pothole details directly into the EXOR defects pool using handheld devices.

    Stated by County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 September 2017.
  2. Action

    Review the defects pool daily to identify overdue safety defects and prioritise them for immediate works orders.

    Stated by County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 September 2017.
  3. Action

    Work collaboratively with BBLP to target overdue works orders and monitor whether joint action achieves timely repairs.

    Stated by County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 September 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Existing pothole repair target times were not changed because they were not criticised at the inquest.

    Stated by County CouncilDisputes 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

Lack of formal auditing of pothole repair completion and quality

Wider context from the report

“(1) The pothole was first identified on 23rd March 2015 as a category 2 defect with a target of 28 days within which such defects should be repaired. (2) The works order to carry out the repair was only raised by Warwickshire County Council 3 months later on 5th June 2015. This was sent to Balfour Beatty Living Places who had entered into a contract with Warwickshire County Council to repair road surfaces in Warwickshire. They in turn subcontracted the road repair work, which included pothole repair work, to CR MacDonald. The works order was received by CR MacDonald on 19th June 2015. (3) The work to repair the pothole was not undertaken by an employee of CR MacDonald until 2nd November 2015, albeit that the wrong pothole was repaired on that day. (4) There was a delay of over 7 months between the identification of the pothole and the time it was supposedly repaired on 2nd November 2015. (5) At the time of the incident Warwickshire County Council did not have a system in place to track with Balfour Beatty Living Places or CR MacDonald the progress of works orders, i.e. when outstanding works had been completed, nor any formal programme of auditing to check if the work has been done and to check the quality of the work. ”

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 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

Delays in raising and transmitting pothole repair works orders

Wider context from the report

“(1) The pothole was first identified on 23rd March 2015 as a category 2 defect with a target of 28 days within which such defects should be repaired. (2) The works order to carry out the repair was only raised by Warwickshire County Council 3 months later on 5th June 2015. This was sent to Balfour Beatty Living Places who had entered into a contract with Warwickshire County Council to repair road surfaces in Warwickshire. They in turn subcontracted the road repair work, which included pothole repair work, to CR MacDonald. The works order was received by CR MacDonald on 19th June 2015. (3) The work to repair the pothole was not undertaken by an employee of CR MacDonald until 2nd November 2015, albeit that the wrong pothole was repaired on that day. (4) There was a delay of over 7 months between the identification of the pothole and the time it was supposedly repaired on 2nd November 2015. (5) At the time of the incident Warwickshire County Council did not have a system in place to track with Balfour Beatty Living Places or CR MacDonald the progress of works orders, i.e. when outstanding works had been completed, nor any formal programme of auditing to check if the work has been done and to check the quality of the work. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure identified safety remedial works are completed; Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair.

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

Delays in completing pothole repairs

Wider context from the report

“(1) The pothole was first identified on 23rd March 2015 as a category 2 defect with a target of 28 days within which such defects should be repaired. (2) The works order to carry out the repair was only raised by Warwickshire County Council 3 months later on 5th June 2015. This was sent to Balfour Beatty Living Places who had entered into a contract with Warwickshire County Council to repair road surfaces in Warwickshire. They in turn subcontracted the road repair work, which included pothole repair work, to CR MacDonald. The works order was received by CR MacDonald on 19th June 2015. (3) The work to repair the pothole was not undertaken by an employee of CR MacDonald until 2nd November 2015, albeit that the wrong pothole was repaired on that day. (4) There was a delay of over 7 months between the identification of the pothole and the time it was supposedly repaired on 2nd November 2015. (5) At the time of the incident Warwickshire County Council did not have a system in place to track with Balfour Beatty Living Places or CR MacDonald the progress of works orders, i.e. when outstanding works had been completed, nor any formal programme of auditing to check if the work has been done and to check the quality of the work. ”

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 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 ensure repair of the identified pothole

Wider context from the report

“(1) The pothole was first identified on 23rd March 2015 as a category 2 defect with a target of 28 days within which such defects should be repaired. (2) The works order to carry out the repair was only raised by Warwickshire County Council 3 months later on 5th June 2015. This was sent to Balfour Beatty Living Places who had entered into a contract with Warwickshire County Council to repair road surfaces in Warwickshire. They in turn subcontracted the road repair work, which included pothole repair work, to CR MacDonald. The works order was received by CR MacDonald on 19th June 2015. (3) The work to repair the pothole was not undertaken by an employee of CR MacDonald until 2nd November 2015, albeit that the wrong pothole was repaired on that day. (4) There was a delay of over 7 months between the identification of the pothole and the time it was supposedly repaired on 2nd November 2015. (5) At the time of the incident Warwickshire County Council did not have a system in place to track with Balfour Beatty Living Places or CR MacDonald the progress of works orders, i.e. when outstanding works had been completed, nor any formal programme of auditing to check if the work has been done and to check the quality of the work. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure identified safety remedial works are completed; Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair.

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 tracking of outstanding pothole repair works orders

Wider context from the report

“(1) The pothole was first identified on 23rd March 2015 as a category 2 defect with a target of 28 days within which such defects should be repaired. (2) The works order to carry out the repair was only raised by Warwickshire County Council 3 months later on 5th June 2015. This was sent to Balfour Beatty Living Places who had entered into a contract with Warwickshire County Council to repair road surfaces in Warwickshire. They in turn subcontracted the road repair work, which included pothole repair work, to CR MacDonald. The works order was received by CR MacDonald on 19th June 2015. (3) The work to repair the pothole was not undertaken by an employee of CR MacDonald until 2nd November 2015, albeit that the wrong pothole was repaired on that day. (4) There was a delay of over 7 months between the identification of the pothole and the time it was supposedly repaired on 2nd November 2015. (5) At the time of the incident Warwickshire County Council did not have a system in place to track with Balfour Beatty Living Places or CR MacDonald the progress of works orders, i.e. when outstanding works had been completed, nor any formal programme of auditing to check if the work has been done and to check the quality of the work. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure identified safety remedial works are completed.

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

Capture inspected pothole details directly into the EXOR defects pool using handheld devices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Ensuring Prompt Issue of a Works Order The Highways Safety Inspectors now use one of six handheld devices to create details of potholes that they find (co-ordinates, photographs, categorisation, etc.) and upload them directly into the County Council’s database in the EXOR computer system. The database is known as the “defects pool”. The defects pool contains records of all kinds of defects and so we have introduced measures to enable safety defects found by Inspectors to be readily distinguished from other defects that do not present an immediate safety concern. This is done by assigning a letter to each of the handheld devices (A, B, C, D, E or F) which prefixes the reference number of any safety defect when it is uploaded to EXOR (e.g. B9678).”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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 the defects pool daily to identify overdue safety defects and prioritise them for immediate works orders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have introduced a target to issue a works order within no more than five days from a safety defect being uploaded to EXOR. The letter prefix means that safety defects in the defects pool can be easily collected and organised for review within the database. Our Delivery Teams in Highways are now required to review the defects pool on a daily basis and the review includes the following objectives:”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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

Work collaboratively with BBLP to target overdue works orders and monitor whether joint action achieves timely repairs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At present, the County Council are working co-operatively with BBLP to target overdue works orders and will keep under review whether joint monitoring and action on a collaborative basis is proving sufficient to ensure that repairs are being effected on time or, in a small number of cases very shortly thereafter. However, inspection of the Confirm dashboard on 19 December 2017 showed that only 14 safety defects were at or beyond the 28 day target across the whole county.”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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

Issue works orders within five days of safety defects being uploaded to EXOR.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have introduced a target to issue a works order within no more than five days from a safety defect being uploaded to EXOR. The letter prefix means that safety defects in the defects pool can be easily collected and organised for review within the database. Our Delivery Teams in Highways are now required to review the defects pool on a daily basis and the review includes the following objectives:”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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

Use Confirm dashboard alerts to identify overdue works orders and prioritise them for urgent completion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our ████████ team have direct access to Confirm as well as BBLP (at the moment only ████████ in Highways has access but access will be provided to all the relevant team leaders in January 2018). Confirm displays a “dashboard” which automatically displays details of any works orders which have gone “red”, meaning that they have not been carried out within 23 days of the date of the works order. Allowing up to five days for the works order to be issued after inspection, this effectively sounds an alert that the 28 day target is at risk of being missed. These works orders are then prioritised for urgent completion.”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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

Arrange emergency temporary repairs where reasons prevent Category 2 defects being repaired within 28 days.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(i) to check whether there is any reason why a Category 2 defect cannot be repaired within 28 days and, if there is such a reason, to arrange for an emergency temporary repair;”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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 pothole repair target times were not changed because they were not criticised at the inquest.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our actions relate, firstly, to the period between a pothole being identified by a Safety Inspector and a works order being issued to BBLP and, secondly, to the period after a works order has been issued. We have not changed the target times for repairing potholes (and no criticism was made of them during the inquest) but have aimed our actions at ensuring that works orders are issued promptly and that any slippage by Balfour Beatty is quickly detected and pursued.”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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.3

  1. 1

    Distinguish safety defects in EXOR by assigning letter prefixes to their reference numbers.

    Stated by County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 September 2017.
  2. 2

    Issue an instruction for pothole depths to be recorded during inspections.

    Stated by County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 September 2017.
  3. 3

    Scan traffic management forms into a single countywide computer file accessible by both sector offices.

    Stated by County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 September 2017.

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

  1. 1

    No timescale can be provided for automatically transferring safety defects from the defects pool to BBLP’s Confirm system.

    Stated by County CouncilUnable 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

Distinguish safety defects in EXOR by assigning letter prefixes to their reference numbers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Ensuring Prompt Issue of a Works Order The Highways Safety Inspectors now use one of six handheld devices to create details of potholes that they find (co-ordinates, photographs, categorisation, etc.) and upload them directly into the County Council’s database in the EXOR computer system. The database is known as the “defects pool”. The defects pool contains records of all kinds of defects and so we have introduced measures to enable safety defects found by Inspectors to be readily distinguished from other defects that do not present an immediate safety concern. This is done by assigning a letter to each of the handheld devices (A, B, C, D, E or F) which prefixes the reference number of any safety defect when it is uploaded to EXOR (e.g. B9678).”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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

Issue an instruction for pothole depths to be recorded during inspections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although it is not mentioned in the Regulation 28 Report, whilst giving your narrative verdict you expressed the hope that Inspectors would in future record the depth of potholes at the time of inspection. An instruction to do so has been issued to BBLP to be implemented from the start of January 2018.”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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

Scan traffic management forms into a single countywide computer file accessible by both sector offices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action has also been taken to speed up the preparation of job packs by agreeing with BBLP that it will deliver all traffic management forms to one central Highways office on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The traffic management forms set out any arrangements for managing traffic that will be necessary whilst defects are being repaired and they are an essential part of each job pack. Although this was not mentioned at the inquest, discussions with BBLP about improving processes identified that traffic management forms were being delivered to either the northern sector office or the southern sector office where they were scanned and put into either a northern sector or a southern sector file. This caused delays if forms were delivered to the wrong office or a length of road straddled the boundaries between the sectors.”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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

No timescale can be provided for automatically transferring safety defects from the defects pool to BBLP’s Confirm system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When a works order is raised and a jobs pack is sent to BBLP by the County Council, it is entered into BBLP’s Confirm computer system. It is the intention of the County Council and BBLP to develop their systems further so that safety defects in the defects pool can be automatically transferred to Confirm. However, I am afraid that we are unable to put a timescale on achieving that.”

Source location

2017-0493-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 28 September 2017

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