Recipient

Mercedes-Benz UK LimitedIncludes reports addressed to a minister or senior office-holder acting for this organisation.

Pin Request correction

First report 22 Jul 2022•Latest report 22 Jul 2022

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Mercedes-Benz UK Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to: ████████, President and CEO, Mercedes-Benz UK Limited, Delaware Drive, Tongwell, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom, MK15 8BA.

    West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Michael Shuttleworth · 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

    Michael Shuttleworth sustained fatal head and chest injuries after being struck by a UPS Mercedes Vario Box Van while crossing Bridge Street in Huddersfield on 5 November 2020. The concerns included a large driver-side blind spot that could completely mask a pedestrian, the absence of front or rear audible impact sensors, and appraisal arrangements that did not provide drivers with feedback or refresher training.

    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. The report was sent to Mercedes-Benz UK Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to offer refresher training following annual driver appraisals

    Wider context from the report

    “6) ████████ gave evidence that UPS drivers were subject to an annual appraisal that involved being accompanied by an assessor who would complete a 60 item tick box form, but that drivers were neither told if they had any part of that assessment or offered any refresher training following such an appraisal. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Mercedes-Benz UK Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Large driver-side blind spots in vans masking pedestrians during right turns

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) ████████ who was suspended by UPS the day after the collision and dismissed by them shortly thereafter, gave evidence that his view from the van when making right turns such as this one was obscured by a large blind spot. (2) An independent Forensic Collision Investigator ("FCI") gave evidence that, when sitting in the driver’s seat at the position ████████ had adjusted to, there was a large blind spot to the driver’s offside, which may have masked the presence of Mr Shuttleworth at certain points of the right turn manoeuvre. (3) The FCI gave evidence that this blind spot area was due to the driver’s offside “A” post and rear-view door mirror assembly and was further affected by the driver’s sliding door frame which enclosed increased the blind spot area. (The FCI said anecdotally, and not as part of his evidence, that he understood that this particular configuration of the Mercedes Vario Box Van was unique to vans supplied by Mercedes to UPS.) 4) The FCI gave evidence that, using ████████ van, he was able to reconstruct at the scene a scenario whereby a pedestrian crossing Bridge Street as Mr Shuttleworth was completely masked by the van’s mirror assembly, “A” post and door frame. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Mercedes-Benz UK Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of front and rear audible impact sensor alarms

    Wider context from the report

    “5) ████████ gave evidence that the van was equipped with a rear facing camera to aid reversing, but no front or rear facing audible impact sensor alarms. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Mercedes-Benz UK Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide drivers with feedback on annual appraisal assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “6) ████████ gave evidence that UPS drivers were subject to an annual appraisal that involved being accompanied by an assessor who would complete a 60 item tick box form, but that drivers were neither told if they had any part of that assessment or offered any refresher training following such an appraisal. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026