Recipient

UPS Limited

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
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 3
Stated actions: 6

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.

100%published responses found

6stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

22 Jul2022
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised4
1. Failure to offer refresher training following annual driver appraisals
2. Large driver-side blind spots in vans masking pedestrians during right turns
3. Lack of front and rear audible impact sensor alarms
1. Failure to provide drivers with feedback on annual appraisal assessments
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Fit rear cameras to package delivery vehicles to increase driver visibility.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Provide new-driver training, supervised competency monitoring, annual driving assessments and additional reassessments where performance or concerns require them.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Review vehicle specifications and develop safety features to reduce risks to drivers and vulnerable road users.
  Stated in progress
Respondent positions 3
1. Position
  Existing vehicle maintenance, visibility features, rear camera, and ongoing safety reviews were considered an adequate response to vehicle safety concerns.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
1. Position
  It was incorrect to suggest that driver assessments provide no feedback, because the assessment process includes documented feedback and advice.
  Disputes the concern
2. Position
  The vehicle had no faults, exceeded applicable safety standards, and provided better visibility than many comparable vehicles.
  Disputes the concern
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 UPS 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 UPS 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 UPS 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 UPS 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
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
Fit rear cameras to package delivery vehicles to increase driver visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Ahead of mainstream technology at the time, these vehicles, and in general almost all UPS package delivery vehicles have a rear camera to increase visibility.”

Source location
Response from UPS
Page 3 · response
Published 28 September 2022
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
Provide new-driver training, supervised competency monitoring, annual driving assessments and additional reassessments where performance or concerns require them.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Upon joining the Company, new drivers attend a driver training school. This is a two week course including both classroom and practical in-vehicle training and assessments. After completing training drivers are closely monitored by a supervisor for 22 working days, during which time the new driver must complete various tasks to the satisfaction of their supervisor to be deemed competent.”

Source location
Response from UPS
Page 3 · response
Published 28 September 2022
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
Review vehicle specifications and develop safety features to reduce risks to drivers and vulnerable road users.

Verbatim wording from the response
“UPS consistently reviews all vehicle specifications to maintain and exceed safety standards for the safety of staff and members of the public.”

Source location
Response from UPS
Page 2 · response
Published 28 September 2022
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
Existing vehicle maintenance, visibility features, rear camera, and ongoing safety reviews were considered an adequate response to vehicle safety concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response
“All vehicles operated by UPS are built and homologated to the respective governing countries requirements, and regulations at the time of manufacture. Additionally vehicles in the UK undergo an annual (MOT) inspection to ensure their safety and compliance.”

Source location
Response from UPS
Page 2 · response
Published 28 September 2022
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
It was incorrect to suggest that driver assessments provide no feedback, because the assessment process includes documented feedback and advice.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the assessment the assessor provides feedback to the driver on any areas identified where improvements may be made. It is wholly incorrect to suggest no feedback is provided. On this assessment the assessor covered the following:”

Source location
Response from UPS
Page 4 · response
Published 28 September 2022
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 had no faults, exceeded applicable safety standards, and provided better visibility than many comparable vehicles.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We note the Police Vehicle Examiner has confirmed there were no faults or defects with the vehicle involved in this tragic collision³.”

Source location
Response from UPS
Page 2 · response
Published 28 September 2022
Open published response

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised4

Failure to offer refresher training following annual driver appraisals

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

Lack of front and rear audible impact sensor alarms

Failure to provide drivers with feedback on annual appraisal assessments

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 3