Raymond Mills
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2025-0199
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 19 Jun 2025
Sent To
Response Status
Responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
19 Jun 2025
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Coroner’s Concerns
While such a report should normally be issued within 10 working days of the conclusion of the Inquest, it has taken until now, having made attempts after the inquest to establish the answer to concerns raised, and I therefore issue the report within 10 working days of becoming aware that my obligation is triggered as I have not been able to establish that appropriate safety measure are in place for the reasons I detail below. All relevant correspondence can be provided, but in summary:
1. I wrote to the National Trust on 29 January 2025 setting out my concerns following the Inquest and seeking further information on signage and any other incidents at the location.
2. By return letter received on 13 February 2025 I was advised that the wreck of the ship, SS Vina, was not the responsibility of National Trust (and they only provided the signage on shore), and that their understanding was that it was owned and managed by Trinity House. Further, the land upon which the wreck sits is on long full-repairing lease to Natural England.
3. We therefore contacted Natural England who, by email of 12 March 2025, advised that there is no sign on the wreck, but that due to it being submerged at high tide, that would be impractical. They stated however that the wreck is the property of Trinty House, who may consider a sign on the mast.
4. An email from Trinity House on 13 March 2025 stated however that they are not the legal owner of the wreck and had previously corresponded with the National Trust to advise them of this.
5. Upon seeking further clarification from the National Trust, they advised on 14 April 2025 that they had previously been advised that Trinity House had taken possession of the wreck of SS Vina. Trinity House provided correspondence between the organisations to advise this was not the case.
6. Upon further enquiry with HM Coastguard to try and resolve this issue, we received an email from them dated 16 April 2025. They have very helpfully tired to assist in resolving the question as to who is responsible for the wreck. However, they advise that the wreck was privately owned when it was requisitioned in World War 2 by the MOD, but their records do not show who currently owns it but suggest that the Department for Transport may be able to assist with ownership.
7. I have therefore reached a point where I am unable to establish who may be the owner of this wreck and responsible for considering concerns over the lack of signage warning of risks. 1. I am concerned that, in light of the above, there is no safe system in place to ensure that an organisation is responsible for the management and safety of such shipwrecks which are accessible by members of the public.
2. With no clear system to ensure that the owners can be identified, there is no system to ensure that concerns can be raised with them when safety concerns arise.
3. That that wreckage does not have sufficient warnings at the location to alert members of the public, particularly those who are not familiar with the tidal waters, of the dangers present at the wreck. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you (and/or your organisation) have the power to take such action.
1. I wrote to the National Trust on 29 January 2025 setting out my concerns following the Inquest and seeking further information on signage and any other incidents at the location.
2. By return letter received on 13 February 2025 I was advised that the wreck of the ship, SS Vina, was not the responsibility of National Trust (and they only provided the signage on shore), and that their understanding was that it was owned and managed by Trinity House. Further, the land upon which the wreck sits is on long full-repairing lease to Natural England.
3. We therefore contacted Natural England who, by email of 12 March 2025, advised that there is no sign on the wreck, but that due to it being submerged at high tide, that would be impractical. They stated however that the wreck is the property of Trinty House, who may consider a sign on the mast.
4. An email from Trinity House on 13 March 2025 stated however that they are not the legal owner of the wreck and had previously corresponded with the National Trust to advise them of this.
5. Upon seeking further clarification from the National Trust, they advised on 14 April 2025 that they had previously been advised that Trinity House had taken possession of the wreck of SS Vina. Trinity House provided correspondence between the organisations to advise this was not the case.
6. Upon further enquiry with HM Coastguard to try and resolve this issue, we received an email from them dated 16 April 2025. They have very helpfully tired to assist in resolving the question as to who is responsible for the wreck. However, they advise that the wreck was privately owned when it was requisitioned in World War 2 by the MOD, but their records do not show who currently owns it but suggest that the Department for Transport may be able to assist with ownership.
7. I have therefore reached a point where I am unable to establish who may be the owner of this wreck and responsible for considering concerns over the lack of signage warning of risks. 1. I am concerned that, in light of the above, there is no safe system in place to ensure that an organisation is responsible for the management and safety of such shipwrecks which are accessible by members of the public.
2. With no clear system to ensure that the owners can be identified, there is no system to ensure that concerns can be raised with them when safety concerns arise.
3. That that wreckage does not have sufficient warnings at the location to alert members of the public, particularly those who are not familiar with the tidal waters, of the dangers present at the wreck. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you (and/or your organisation) have the power to take such action.
Responses
The Department for Transport states it does not own the SS VINA wreck, having sold it in 1957, and therefore has no legal responsibility for it. They are not proposing to take any further action.
AI summary
View full response
Dear Samantha,
Thank you for your report into the death of Barrie Thomas Mills, dated 23 April 2025, along with accompanying correspondence concerning the ownership of the SS VINA.
First, may I offer my condolences to the family of Mr Mills for their loss in such tragic circumstances.
Having reviewed our records, I can confirm that the wreck is not owned by the Department for Transport.
By the time of World War 2, it was already an old vessel and had been purchased by the government for the purpose of being sunk as an underwater blockade. In 1944 it was repurposed by the Air Ministry as a bombing practice target until it became too badly damaged. At some subsequent time, the remaining wreck dragged its anchor and came to rest at its current location.
As was common practice at the time, The then Ministry of Transport sold what was left of the wreck to a private individual for a scrap value of £25 in
1957. The original purchaser then passed title to another private individual in
1959.
A small number of enquiries were received in subsequent years, which were all referred to the owner. We have no record of any further interest for a number of decades.
The Department does not possess any further information that might assist in ascertaining whether title to the wreck was ever passed to anyone else or if a current owner exists. As the Department is no longer the owner of this wreck and has no legal responsibility pertaining to it, we are not proposing to take any further action on this occasion.
Thank you for your report into the death of Barrie Thomas Mills, dated 23 April 2025, along with accompanying correspondence concerning the ownership of the SS VINA.
First, may I offer my condolences to the family of Mr Mills for their loss in such tragic circumstances.
Having reviewed our records, I can confirm that the wreck is not owned by the Department for Transport.
By the time of World War 2, it was already an old vessel and had been purchased by the government for the purpose of being sunk as an underwater blockade. In 1944 it was repurposed by the Air Ministry as a bombing practice target until it became too badly damaged. At some subsequent time, the remaining wreck dragged its anchor and came to rest at its current location.
As was common practice at the time, The then Ministry of Transport sold what was left of the wreck to a private individual for a scrap value of £25 in
1957. The original purchaser then passed title to another private individual in
1959.
A small number of enquiries were received in subsequent years, which were all referred to the owner. We have no record of any further interest for a number of decades.
The Department does not possess any further information that might assist in ascertaining whether title to the wreck was ever passed to anyone else or if a current owner exists. As the Department is no longer the owner of this wreck and has no legal responsibility pertaining to it, we are not proposing to take any further action on this occasion.
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 22 August 2024 I commenced an investigation into the death of Raymond Barrie Thomas MILLS aged 74. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 22 January 2025. The medical cause of death was: 1a) Ischaemic Heart Disease and Drowning The conclusion of the inquest was: Died due to accident caused by underlying natural causes.
Circumstances of the Death
In summary, on the 17th of August 2024 Mr Mills went to view a shipwreck off the coast of Brancaster beach in Norfolk. While doing so he went under the water when the tide came in and a search operation was launched by the Coast Guard. He was sadly found unresponsive in the sea and despite attempts to revive him, he died after being airlifted to the local airport. At the Inquest concern was raised by Mr Mills’ family that there was not actually a sign at the site of the shipwreck warning of the dangers of the tides at the wreck. Reference was made to some signs which are pictured online, but it was unclear to me whether they were current and in place and in a bundle of photographs that had been provided by the National Trust with warning signs, they did not provide photographs of any signs at the site of the wreck. I was unclear if this was because they are no longer there or just that they did not realise these may be of assistance. As this issue was raised at the hearing and we had not had the opportunity to ask the questions of National Trust prior to this, I was unclear whether my obligation under Regulation 28 had been triggered. I therefore indicated that I would write a letter to obtain more information and decide upon receipt of that response. This however then triggered a whole series of correspondence, the outcome of which, is that no one seems to know who is responsible for the shipwreck.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Review CCTV monitoring SIA licence requirements
Manchester Arena Inquiry
Unregulated recreation safety
Establish standard for event healthcare services
Manchester Arena Inquiry
Unregulated recreation safety
Mandatory Ambulance Liaison Officer at events
Manchester Arena Inquiry
Unregulated recreation safety
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.