PFD report

Ben Andrew Collins · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Aug 2016•Surrey

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

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 raised4

  1. Lack of defined servicing intervals for Suction Excavation control panels
  2. Lack of HSE guidance on the use of Suction Excavation machines
  3. Failure to ensure personnel are trained to operate Suction Excavation equipment in emergencies
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.1

  1. Action

    Work with the Construction Plant-hire Association and industry representatives to develop guidance on suction excavator operation, training, two-person working, maintenance and inspection records.

    Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 August 2016.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The forthcoming industry guidance and accredited training scheme are considered sufficient to cover the Coroner’s identified safety concerns.

    Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveExisting 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

Lack of defined servicing intervals for Suction Excavation control panels

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed that upon finding Mr Collins in the trench, those present had no knowledge of how to operate the Suction Excavator in order to release Mr Collins. Digsafe Excavations Ltd provided one person with knowledge of how to operate the excavator with an expectation that a second man would be provided by whosoever contracted with them. That person however would not know how to operate the Suction Excavator in an emergency or be fully trained in its use. Further there is no HSE guidance covering; a) the use of a Suction Excavation machine, b) training for such use, c) the provision of a fully trained second man, d) the regularity of servicing of control panels. Digsafe Suction Excavation Ltd give consideration to the provision of a second man by them at each excavation who is fully trained in the operation of the Suction Excavator and associated equipment such as an air-lance. The HSE give consideration to the provisions of guidance regarding training and the use of suction excavation equipment including a recommendation for the provision of a second man fully trained to use the Suction Excavator and associated equipment, regular servicing of remote controllers together with the proper documentation of such. ”

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

Lack of HSE guidance on the use of Suction Excavation machines

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed that upon finding Mr Collins in the trench, those present had no knowledge of how to operate the Suction Excavator in order to release Mr Collins. Digsafe Excavations Ltd provided one person with knowledge of how to operate the excavator with an expectation that a second man would be provided by whosoever contracted with them. That person however would not know how to operate the Suction Excavator in an emergency or be fully trained in its use. Further there is no HSE guidance covering; a) the use of a Suction Excavation machine, b) training for such use, c) the provision of a fully trained second man, d) the regularity of servicing of control panels. Digsafe Suction Excavation Ltd give consideration to the provision of a second man by them at each excavation who is fully trained in the operation of the Suction Excavator and associated equipment such as an air-lance. The HSE give consideration to the provisions of guidance regarding training and the use of suction excavation equipment including a recommendation for the provision of a second man fully trained to use the Suction Excavator and associated equipment, regular servicing of remote controllers together with the proper documentation of such. ”

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 ensure personnel are trained to operate Suction Excavation equipment in emergencies

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed that upon finding Mr Collins in the trench, those present had no knowledge of how to operate the Suction Excavator in order to release Mr Collins. Digsafe Excavations Ltd provided one person with knowledge of how to operate the excavator with an expectation that a second man would be provided by whosoever contracted with them. That person however would not know how to operate the Suction Excavator in an emergency or be fully trained in its use. Further there is no HSE guidance covering; a) the use of a Suction Excavation machine, b) training for such use, c) the provision of a fully trained second man, d) the regularity of servicing of control panels. Digsafe Suction Excavation Ltd give consideration to the provision of a second man by them at each excavation who is fully trained in the operation of the Suction Excavator and associated equipment such as an air-lance. The HSE give consideration to the provisions of guidance regarding training and the use of suction excavation equipment including a recommendation for the provision of a second man fully trained to use the Suction Excavator and associated equipment, regular servicing of remote controllers together with the proper documentation of such. ”

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 a fully trained second operator at each excavation

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed that upon finding Mr Collins in the trench, those present had no knowledge of how to operate the Suction Excavator in order to release Mr Collins. Digsafe Excavations Ltd provided one person with knowledge of how to operate the excavator with an expectation that a second man would be provided by whosoever contracted with them. That person however would not know how to operate the Suction Excavator in an emergency or be fully trained in its use. Further there is no HSE guidance covering; a) the use of a Suction Excavation machine, b) training for such use, c) the provision of a fully trained second man, d) the regularity of servicing of control panels. Digsafe Suction Excavation Ltd give consideration to the provision of a second man by them at each excavation who is fully trained in the operation of the Suction Excavator and associated equipment such as an air-lance. The HSE give consideration to the provisions of guidance regarding training and the use of suction excavation equipment including a recommendation for the provision of a second man fully trained to use the Suction Excavator and associated equipment, regular servicing of remote controllers together with the proper documentation of such. ”

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

Work with the Construction Plant-hire Association and industry representatives to develop guidance on suction excavator operation, training, two-person working, maintenance and inspection records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“GUIDANCE – HSE publishes a wide range of health and safety guidance written for use by industry and interested parties. For more technical or targeted guidance HSE now finds that it is more effective to assist industry trade bodies to write their own guidance. This allows the guidance to be more relevant and specific to users, easier to keep up to date and to access. The HSE has been working closely with the Construction Plant-hire Association (CPA) to improve its guidance regarding the use of suction excavators. The CPA has formed a Suction and Vacuum Excavator interest group, which comprises of representatives from the HSE, manufacturers, users and hire companies. The main thrust of the group is to produce guidance. At the time of writing this has reached the stage of a second draft which is out for consultation within the group.”

Source location

2016-0282-Response-by-HSE
Page 1 · response
Published 10 August 2016

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 forthcoming industry guidance and accredited training scheme are considered sufficient to cover the Coroner’s identified safety concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is the HSE’s opinion that the new guidance, once published; and the new accredited training scheme, once established, will cover the key points raised by the HM Coroner.”

Source location

2016-0282-Response-by-HSE
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2016

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

Targeted suction-excavator guidance is more appropriately produced by industry trade bodies, with HSE assistance, rather than directly by HSE.

Verbatim wording from the response

“GUIDANCE – HSE publishes a wide range of health and safety guidance written for use by industry and interested parties. For more technical or targeted guidance HSE now finds that it is more effective to assist industry trade bodies to write their own guidance. This allows the guidance to be more relevant and specific to users, easier to keep up to date and to access. The HSE has been working closely with the Construction Plant-hire Association (CPA) to improve its guidance regarding the use of suction excavators. The CPA has formed a Suction and Vacuum Excavator interest group, which comprises of representatives from the HSE, manufacturers, users and hire companies. The main thrust of the group is to produce guidance. At the time of writing this has reached the stage of a second draft which is out for consultation within the group.”

Source location

2016-0282-Response-by-HSE
Page 1 · response
Published 10 August 2016

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.1

  1. 1

    Recommend that the Construction Plant-hire Association strengthen the guidance to prohibit use of damaged or malfunctioning remote controls until repaired.

    Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 August 2016.

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

Recommend that the Construction Plant-hire Association strengthen the guidance to prohibit use of damaged or malfunctioning remote controls until repaired.

Verbatim wording from the response

“MAINTENANCE – the draft guidance states that: “the function of all controls and safety devices should be checked by the suction and vacuum excavator operator for correct working before the excavator commences. The remote control units should be checked to ensure sufficient battery power is available for the intended operations, clean, free from damage and the operation of the emergency stop button and any other isolating devices must be checked for operational function.” HSE will also recommend to the CPA that the text should stress that remote control units contain sensitive electronic devices and that any damage or malfunction noted means the unit should not be used until it has been repaired.”

Source location

2016-0282-Response-by-HSE
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2016

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