PFD report

Martin Leslie Brown · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Aug 2013•Gloucestershire

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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 raised1

  1. Failure to clearly specify permitted road speed limits for Milepave use
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.2

  1. Action

    Revise paragraph 3.1 of the certificate to remove the reference to rural roads and limit stated suitability to highways with posted speed limits up to 40 mph.

    Stated by BBAStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 August 2013.
  2. Action

    Reissue the certificate with the revised paragraph 3.1 wording by 1 December 2013.

    Stated by BBAStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 August 2013.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The certificate states where the product is suitable; uses outside those circumstances are already outside the certificate’s scope.

    Stated by BBAExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 clearly specify permitted road speed limits for Milepave use

Wider context from the report

“(1) There may be a possible dispute as to the interpretation of BBA certificate number 06/H120 issued in respect of Milepave. (2) In para 3.1 of the certificate it suggests that the product can be used on roads with a posted speed limit of less than 40mph. The same paragraph refers to use on “rural roads” that may, of course, be subject to the national speed limit of 60 mph. (3) The certificate does not specify that the product should not be used on roads where the posted speed limit is greater than 40 mph. (4) My concern is that the correct use of the product Milepave is not clearly set out in the certificate and it may be used inappropriately because of the wording used in the certificate. ”

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

Revise paragraph 3.1 of the certificate to remove the reference to rural roads and limit stated suitability to highways with posted speed limits up to 40 mph.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have revised paragraph 3.1 and removed the reference to rural roads. The sentence now reads:”

Source location

2013-0209-Response-by-British-Board-of-Agrement
Page 1 · response
Published 29 August 2013

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

Reissue the certificate with the revised paragraph 3.1 wording by 1 December 2013.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have revised paragraph 3.1 and removed the reference to rural roads. The sentence now reads:”

Source location

2013-0209-Response-by-British-Board-of-Agrement
Page 1 · response
Published 29 August 2013

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 certificate states where the product is suitable; uses outside those circumstances are already outside the certificate’s scope.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to your concern that the Certificate does not say the system should not be used on roads with posted speed limits higher than 40 mph. Our Certificates are issued on a voluntary basis and they provide a platform for manufacturers to declare properties of their proprietary products that may fall outside of any National or International Standards. This information can be used to assist in making decisions on whether it is appropriate for specific sites or constructions, based upon third party statements, rather than just those of the manufacturer. It is our policy to state the circumstances and situations where, in our opinion the product is suitable for use. Any other situations are, therefore, by definition outside of the scope of the Certificate.”

Source location

2013-0209-Response-by-British-Board-of-Agrement
Page 1 · response
Published 29 August 2013

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

Decisions to use products outside the certificate’s identified situations belong to certificate holders, road authorities, engineers or architects.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The BBA is an organisation that offers technical approvals of systems and products and we are not linked to Road or Construction Authorities. We have no power to stop the use of any of our Certificated products being used on or in situations that are not identified in the Certificate. If a Certificate holder, Road Authority, Engineer or Architect, etc decide, based on the information available, to use a product or system that is their decision.”

Source location

2013-0209-Response-by-British-Board-of-Agrement
Page 1 · response
Published 29 August 2013

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 organisation has no authority to prevent certified products being used in situations not identified in the certificate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The BBA is an organisation that offers technical approvals of systems and products and we are not linked to Road or Construction Authorities. We have no power to stop the use of any of our Certificated products being used on or in situations that are not identified in the Certificate. If a Certificate holder, Road Authority, Engineer or Architect, etc decide, based on the information available, to use a product or system that is their decision.”

Source location

2013-0209-Response-by-British-Board-of-Agrement
Page 1 · response
Published 29 August 2013

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