Recurring concern

Unreliable safety controls for vehicle repairs and maintenance

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 16 Aug 2013•Latest report 26 Sep 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in safety controls for vehicle repairs and maintenance, including inspection, testing, quality assurance, compliance checking, independent verification, feedback on ineffective or incorrect work, recordkeeping and confirmation that repaired vehicles are safe to return to service.

Not included

Excludes vehicle type approval and design-control failures where the repair or maintenance process is not deficient; those belong to the existing vehicle-approval concern.
Excludes routine vehicle servicing or maintenance concerns where no safety-relevant repair-quality, verification or assurance failure is identified.
Excludes driving behaviour, road infrastructure and collision-response failures unrelated to vehicle repair or maintenance controls.
Excludes generic workshop staffing, training or documentation deficiencies unless they directly impair the safety assurance of vehicle repairs or maintenance.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 7
Date range: 2013–2025
Stated actions: 2

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Association of British Insurers1

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency1

Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency1

Ministry of Defence1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

26 Sep2025
Suffolk
Concerns raised5
1. Lack of a process for inspection of MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs
2. Lack of a testing process for MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs
3. Lack of a formal process for real-time feedback on ineffective or incorrect vehicle repairs
1. Lack of a process for checking MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs
2. Lack of an audit process for MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs
This report raised 10 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Catherine Moore · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Catherine Moore died from traumatic injuries after a road traffic collision between an MOD Land Rover and an HGV, in which the HGV crossed the central reservation and crushed her car. The report found that defective steering, associated with inadequate maintenance and repair of the MOD Land Rover, contributed to the collision and her death. Concerns included unclear and limited information in the JAMES maintenance system, and the absence of formal processes for inspecting, auditing, providing feedback on, and testing MOD vehicle repairs and maintenance.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a process for inspection of MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs
Wider context from the report
“2.      With reference to repair and maintenance of the MOD Land Rover: There is no process with regards to inspection, checking, audit, feedback and testing of MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs There is no formal process for real time feedback to e.g. Motor Transport on ineffective/incorrect repairs/maintenance ”
Source location
Catherine Moore · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a testing process for MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs
Wider context from the report
“2.      With reference to repair and maintenance of the MOD Land Rover: There is no process with regards to inspection, checking, audit, feedback and testing of MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs There is no formal process for real time feedback to e.g. Motor Transport on ineffective/incorrect repairs/maintenance ”
Source location
Catherine Moore · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a formal process for real-time feedback on ineffective or incorrect vehicle repairs
Wider context from the report
“2.      With reference to repair and maintenance of the MOD Land Rover: There is no process with regards to inspection, checking, audit, feedback and testing of MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs There is no formal process for real time feedback to e.g. Motor Transport on ineffective/incorrect repairs/maintenance ”
Source location
Catherine Moore · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a process for checking MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs
Wider context from the report
“2.      With reference to repair and maintenance of the MOD Land Rover: There is no process with regards to inspection, checking, audit, feedback and testing of MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs There is no formal process for real time feedback to e.g. Motor Transport on ineffective/incorrect repairs/maintenance ”
Source location
Catherine Moore · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of an audit process for MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs
Wider context from the report
“2.      With reference to repair and maintenance of the MOD Land Rover: There is no process with regards to inspection, checking, audit, feedback and testing of MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs There is no formal process for real time feedback to e.g. Motor Transport on ineffective/incorrect repairs/maintenance ”
Source location
Catherine Moore · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
16 Aug2013
North Wales (East and Central)
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to ensure compliant structural repairs to insurance write-off vehicles
2. Lack of effective independent checks on repaired insurance write-off vehicles before return to the road
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Remind ABI member firms about the Salvage Code and steps required for compliance.
  Stated by Association of British InsurersStated completed
2. Action
  Work with the Department for Transport, VOSA and DVLA to review the VIC scheme, including consideration of an additional check for structurally damaged vehicles.
  Stated by Association of British InsurersStated in progress
Respondent positions 4
1. Position
  Complete dismantling or crash testing cannot feasibly verify structural repairs because dismantling is prohibitively expensive and crash testing defeats consumer purchase.
  Stated by Association of British InsurersUnable to act
1. Position
  Vehicle repair associations should disseminate concerns to their members and seek responses on repair quality.
  Stated by Association of British InsurersRedirects responsibility
2. Position
  The Vehicle Identity Check Scheme is limited to vehicle identity and does not inspect the roadworthiness of repaired written-off vehicles.
  Stated by Department for TransportOutside remit
3. Position
  A standard MOT inspection would be unlikely to detect structural welding defects obscured by sealant, trim or other components.
  Stated by Department for TransportDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Sadie Ann Jane McGrady · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Sadie Ann Jane McGrady died after the vehicle in which she was travelling was struck on a dual carriageway, causing severe head injuries from intrusion of the vehicle’s rear quarter panel. The report raised concerns about substandard repairs to a previously written-off vehicle, the lack of independent checks before repaired vehicles returned to the road, and whether such repairs could increase injury severity in collisions.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure compliant structural repairs to insurance write-off vehicles
Wider context from the report
“(1) Evidence was given by ████████ Advanced Police Vehicle Examiner indicating that the Vauxhall Corsa was the subject of a category D, total loss insurance claim in May 2008, the insurance claim relating to (inter alia) a crumpled rear offside sill member and adjacent quarter panel and a dented driver’s door. Various repairs had been undertaken to the vehicle and the examiner was concerned by the quality of the repair to the rear offside quarter panel. He noted that it did not comply to the recognised industry repair method and was substandard as there had been unnecessary removal of the complete spot weld resulting in the separation of all 3 panels forming part of the laminated “B” pillar structure and inadequate quality and insufficient mig welding to attach the replacement quarter panel compromising the integrity of the “B” pillar structure. (2) The consequence of this substandard repair undoubtedly resulted in greater intrusion into the passenger cell when the vehicle was subjected to a severe broadside impact, which in turn may have increased the likelihood of the occupants sustaining serious injury. (3) The evidence of ████████ Home Office Forensic Pathologist, indicated that the head injuries sustained by Sadie were the result of her head impacting against the intruded rear quarter panel and had this not intruded so much as a result of the collision then it is possible that she may not have sustained such severe head injuries and may well have survived the collision. (4) Forensic Collision Investigator ████████ indicated in his evidence that in circumstances where there had been a category D write off, there were no independent checks undertaken on repaired vehicles before they returned to the road and that the MOT process would be unlikely to establish that the structure/integrity of a damaged vehicle had been compromised by a substandard repair. (5) The above matters give rise to a concern that there exists the uncontrolled sale and repair of insurance write offs as a result of which future deaths may occur when previously written off vehicles are back on the road and involved in collisions. ”
Source location
Sadie Ann Jane McGrady · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of effective independent checks on repaired insurance write-off vehicles before return to the road
Wider context from the report
“(1) Evidence was given by ████████ Advanced Police Vehicle Examiner indicating that the Vauxhall Corsa was the subject of a category D, total loss insurance claim in May 2008, the insurance claim relating to (inter alia) a crumpled rear offside sill member and adjacent quarter panel and a dented driver’s door. Various repairs had been undertaken to the vehicle and the examiner was concerned by the quality of the repair to the rear offside quarter panel. He noted that it did not comply to the recognised industry repair method and was substandard as there had been unnecessary removal of the complete spot weld resulting in the separation of all 3 panels forming part of the laminated “B” pillar structure and inadequate quality and insufficient mig welding to attach the replacement quarter panel compromising the integrity of the “B” pillar structure. (2) The consequence of this substandard repair undoubtedly resulted in greater intrusion into the passenger cell when the vehicle was subjected to a severe broadside impact, which in turn may have increased the likelihood of the occupants sustaining serious injury. (3) The evidence of ████████ Home Office Forensic Pathologist, indicated that the head injuries sustained by Sadie were the result of her head impacting against the intruded rear quarter panel and had this not intruded so much as a result of the collision then it is possible that she may not have sustained such severe head injuries and may well have survived the collision. (4) Forensic Collision Investigator ████████ indicated in his evidence that in circumstances where there had been a category D write off, there were no independent checks undertaken on repaired vehicles before they returned to the road and that the MOT process would be unlikely to establish that the structure/integrity of a damaged vehicle had been compromised by a substandard repair. (5) The above matters give rise to a concern that there exists the uncontrolled sale and repair of insurance write offs as a result of which future deaths may occur when previously written off vehicles are back on the road and involved in collisions. ”
Source location
Sadie Ann Jane McGrady · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
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
Remind ABI member firms about the Salvage Code and steps required for compliance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Over the coming months we will be working with the Department for Transport, VOSA and the DVLA to review the current VIC scheme to include the additional check we have proposed. We would be more than happy to provide you with further details once we know the outcome of our on-going discussions. In the interim, we have written to ABI member firms reminding them of the importance of the Salvage Code and the steps they should take to ensure compliance within it.”

Source location
Response from Association of British Insurers
Page 2 · response
Published 16 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
Work with the Department for Transport, VOSA and DVLA to review the VIC scheme, including consideration of an additional check for structurally damaged vehicles.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In recent months we have been working with the Department for Transport to review the VIC scheme. We have suggested that vehicles that have sustained structural damage (as opposed to cosmetic damage) undergo an ‘enhanced’ VIC where the vehicle inspector will not only check the vehicle’s identity but also the paperwork associated with repair work undertaken. In reality, the only failsafe way to verify that structural repairs have been carried out correctly is to either dismantle the vehicle completely (which is likely to be prohibitively expensive for most consumers) or to put the vehicle through a crash test which would obviously undermine the purpose of the consumer buying the vehicle in the first place). However, we think that an enhanced VIC will encourage a greater awareness within the industry of the need to ensure that all repairs are carried out to appropriate standards.”

Source location
Response from Association of British Insurers
Page 2 · response
Published 16 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
Complete dismantling or crash testing cannot feasibly verify structural repairs because dismantling is prohibitively expensive and crash testing defeats consumer purchase.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In recent months we have been working with the Department for Transport to review the VIC scheme. We have suggested that vehicles that have sustained structural damage (as opposed to cosmetic damage) undergo an ‘enhanced’ VIC where the vehicle inspector will not only check the vehicle’s identity but also the paperwork associated with repair work undertaken. In reality, the only failsafe way to verify that structural repairs have been carried out correctly is to either dismantle the vehicle completely (which is likely to be prohibitively expensive for most consumers) or to put the vehicle through a crash test which would obviously undermine the purpose of the consumer buying the vehicle in the first place). However, we think that an enhanced VIC will encourage a greater awareness within the industry of the need to ensure that all repairs are carried out to appropriate standards.”

Source location
Response from Association of British Insurers
Page 2 · response
Published 16 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
Vehicle repair associations should disseminate concerns to their members and seek responses on repair quality.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In light of the focus in your report on questions about the quality of repairs, we suggest that you also approach the Vehicle Builders and Repairers’ Association and the National Association of Bodyshops who may be in a position to disseminate your concerns to their respective members and seek further responses.”

Source location
Response from Association of British Insurers
Page 2 · response
Published 16 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 Vehicle Identity Check Scheme is limited to vehicle identity and does not inspect the roadworthiness of repaired written-off vehicles.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Scheme, however, was never intended for the purpose of checking the roadworthiness of repaired written-off vehicles. If examiners identify any obvious roadworthiness defects on vehicles being VIC tested they can only bring them to the attention of the presenter. The VIC inspection is limited only to those features relating to the identity of the vehicle.”

Source location
Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 16 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
A standard MOT inspection would be unlikely to detect structural welding defects obscured by sealant, trim or other components.

Verbatim wording from the response
“However, the inspection of repaired, seriously damaged vehicles using the MOT system, would be limited to a visual check only and would not be able to inspect the integrity of welded structural repairs if they were obscured by sealant, mastic, trim, lining, carpets or other components (dismantling for MOT purposes is not permitted). Therefore, as mentioned in your report, it is unlikely that a standard MOT inspection would have detected a problem with the car in this case.”

Source location
Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 16 August 2013
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised5

Lack of a process for inspection of MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs

Lack of a testing process for MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs

Lack of a formal process for real-time feedback on ineffective or incorrect vehicle repairs

Lack of a process for checking MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs

Lack of an audit process for MOD vehicle maintenance and repairs

Concerns raised2

Failure to ensure compliant structural repairs to insurance write-off vehicles

Lack of effective independent checks on repaired insurance write-off vehicles before return to the road

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 4