VEM Williams proceeded to investigate the complaints and provided detailed explanations into each Prohibition Notice.

The following is a summary of VEM Williams’ findings:

• The ‘detached hub’ vehicle YJ04FYT prohibition should have been ‘S’ marked (denoting a significant failure in roadworthiness compliance),
  
• VE Williams particularly noted the failure to comply with the PSV 112 notification of a serious road safety incident,
  
• Prohibitions were correctly issued to vehicle W671CWX
  
• Regarding the operator’s claim that vehicle SN55BPO should not have attracted a prohibition for insufficient tyre tread depth as it was under repair, VE Williams asked the rhetorical question, “How can a vehicle have a tyre below legal limit if not being used?”
  
• The Operator’s claims of vehicle SN55BPO not being in service for a number of weeks before 24th April 2023, was refuted by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) data, showing use on 8 separate dates in April. As such, VEM Williams reviewed the prohibition and asked the examiner to delete the original prohibition and replace it with an ‘S’ marked Prohibition Notice.
  

• MOT fail rate at 43%, initial fail, being significantly higher than the national 10% figure.
  
• Based on this investigation, the VE refers to continuous and effective management by the TM not existing and the TM as being “obstructive”.
  
• A response to the findings of the MIVR was issued by the Operator in January 2024. This report was not signed nor was it dated, so the author could not be confirmed by VE Mann. The response addressed each section of the MIVR, refuting several of the findings and providing explanations as to why the alleged shortcomings had occurred. The Operator also provided assurances as to how the issues would be rectified going forward.
  
• Upon receipt of the Operator’s response, VE Mann marked the response as ‘unsatisfactory’, stating “this is an experienced Operator but yet the maintenance arrangements still seem to be in disarray. For the safety of all road users concerned – in my opinion a major commitment in improvement is required in maintenance standards to uphold this operator’s undertakings”. (pg. 247)
  
• The VE also states, “when prohibition notices are issued there seems to be a desperate search for a maintenance provider to repair the defects. Vehicles are scrapped rather than re-tested. This leaves me concerned regarding the standards of the vehicles if they are not cost effective to repair. For example, vehicle YJ07VXU – one prohibition notice in a sequence of events, resulted in the vehicle being written off. It begs the question, who the regular maintenance team was at the time?” (pg.247)
  
• The statement of garage director, Ryan Jackson, “they wanted a bodge, I will never put my name or business to such a low standard of work” highlights VE Mann’s concerns. (pg. 264)