School Minibus Operator Suspended After MOT Finds Tyre Cut to Cord

A school minibus operator has had its licence suspended and its authorised fleet cut in half after a Traffic Commissioner identified serious maintenance and compliance failings, including an MOT failure involving a minibus with a tyre cut to the cord.

St Martins Preparatory School Limited, which operates school minibuses from Grimsby, has had its restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence suspended for 14 days.

Its licence has also been reduced from two vehicles to one until further notice.

The regulatory action followed a public inquiry held in Leeds on 10 September 2026 after concerns raised through previous enforcement activity, an independent audit and subsequent DVSA investigations.

Deputy Traffic Commissioner Gerallt Evans concluded that there had been an almost complete lack of effective management control of the operator’s licence.

Among the problems identified was a March 2025 MOT failure involving a minibus presented for test with a tyre cut to its cord.

The Traffic Commissioner described the defect as evidence of a road-safety-critical problem on a vehicle in service and expressed particular concern because the minibus was being used to carry schoolchildren.

Minibus presented for MOT with tyre cut to cord

The MOT failure is one of the most striking details in the case.

According to the Traffic Commissioner’s written decision, a vehicle operated by the school failed its MOT in March 2025 with a tyre cut to the cord.

The operator was subsequently unable to explain how the minibus had reached the point of being presented for its MOT in that condition.

The Traffic Commissioner also found that the incident had not been properly investigated at the time and nobody had been held accountable for the failure.

It wasn’t the only MOT-related concern.

The decision also records that the operator had a low average first-time MOT pass rate.

For any organisation responsible for operating passenger vehicles, an MOT failure caused by an obvious safety-related defect raises questions not simply about the test itself, but about the maintenance and inspection processes that should have identified the problem before the vehicle reached the test station.

What are the MOT rules for a tyre cut to the cord?

Tyre condition is an important part of vehicle roadworthiness inspections.

DVSA inspection standards require testers to examine tyres for cuts, structural deterioration and exposed or damaged cords.

The precise classification depends on the nature and severity of the defect.

Under the MOT inspection standards for cars and passenger vehicles, a cut exceeding the prescribed limits and deep enough to reach the ply or cords is classified as a Major defect.

More serious structural damage — including a lump, bulge or tear caused by separation or partial failure of the tyre structure, including exposed or damaged cords — is classified as Dangerous.

For passenger-carrying vehicles there are additional requirements surrounding tyre condition and age.

The important point for operators is that an MOT should not be relied upon as the primary method of finding serious tyre defects.

Appropriate driver checks and planned preventative maintenance should identify roadworthiness problems before a vehicle reaches its annual test.

Concerns dated back to 2024

The regulatory action wasn’t triggered by one failed MOT alone.

St Martins Preparatory School Limited first came to the attention of the Traffic Commissioner in 2024 following concerns that it had failed to cooperate with a DVSA investigation.

That issue concluded with the operator agreeing to arrange an independent audit during 2025.

However, the subsequent audit in September 2025 identified further compliance concerns.

The Traffic Commissioner then asked DVSA to conduct further investigations.

Those investigations raised additional concerns and ultimately resulted in the operator being called to a public inquiry.

Vehicle inspections were supposed to take place every 10 weeks

One of the findings concerned the school’s promised maintenance arrangements.

When applying for its operator’s licence, the company had stated that its vehicles would be inspected at 10-week intervals.

The Traffic Commissioner found that this commitment had not been fulfilled.

The operator was also found not to have fulfilled undertakings requiring vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable and proper maintenance records to be maintained.

There were also shortcomings involving drivers’ hours compliance.

According to the decision, there was ineffective management control and insufficient systems and procedures to prevent operator-licence compliance failures.

Driver training and monitoring criticised

The findings extended beyond vehicle maintenance.

The Traffic Commissioner identified ineffective procedures for detecting drivers’ hours and Working Time Directive infringements.

Driver training was considered ineffective and insufficient, while monitoring and disciplinary procedures were also inadequate.

Procedures concerning appropriate use of tachograph records were also found to be insufficient.

The operator had additionally used vehicles without the required discs being displayed and with incorrect MOT classification.

Taken together, the Traffic Commissioner characterised the case as involving persistent operator-licence failures with an inadequate response.

Responsibility passed to staff without sufficient expertise

One of the wider lessons from the case concerns responsibility for vehicle compliance.

The Traffic Commissioner found that the directors had effectively delegated responsibility for operator-licence compliance to the school’s head and other local staff who were not suitably qualified or equipped for the task.

This is particularly significant for organisations where operating vehicles isn’t the main purpose of the business.

Schools, charities, clubs and other organisations running minibuses can still carry substantial responsibilities for vehicle roadworthiness, maintenance, driver compliance and operator licensing.

Simply assigning those responsibilities to an employee doesn’t remove the legal obligations placed on the operator.

The Traffic Commissioner remained concerned about who would have responsibility for future compliance, noting that proposed day-to-day management appeared likely to involve a newly appointed head teacher and school administrator alongside oversight from management and directors.

Vehicles taken out of service

There were some positive findings.

Following DVSA visits in March 2026, the operator acted quickly to take its vehicles out of service while procedures were reviewed.

There was also evidence that some new systems and procedures had been introduced.

Directors, other managers and a driver had received training, while the operator cooperated with the more recent enforcement investigation.

No prohibitions had been issued to the operator.

However, the Traffic Commissioner considered that the negative features of the case significantly outweighed those positives.

A particular concern was that because the vehicles had been withdrawn from operation, the revised procedures had not yet been properly tested in normal operation.

Operator narrowly avoids losing its licence completely

The consequences could have been more severe.

The Traffic Commissioner considered whether the operator could be trusted to remain compliant in future and expressed considerable doubts.

Ultimately, however, the operator avoided having its licence revoked.

The Commissioner said the decision not to revoke the licence was reached by the narrowest of margins, with other regulatory action imposed instead.

The company’s restricted PSV operator’s licence has been suspended in its entirety for 14 days from 25 September until 9 October 2026.

Its licence has also been limited to one vehicle, down from two.

That restriction will remain until further order.

Independent compliance audit required

The operator must now take further action before potentially returning to a larger fleet.

An independent body must carry out an audit of its transport safety and compliance systems in March 2027.

The audit must assess systems covering vehicle maintenance and drivers’ hours as well as whether those systems are being effectively implemented.

A copy of the audit report, together with the operator’s proposals for implementing its recommendations, must be provided by 30 April 2027.

The operator must also formally identify the person responsible for its operator’s licence.

If the March 2027 audit is satisfactory and no other adverse issues come to the attention of the Traffic Commissioner, the company may ask for the one-vehicle restriction to be removed.

What can other vehicle operators learn from the case?

Although this case concerns a school minibus operation, the underlying roadworthiness lessons apply much more widely.

The MOT is an annual inspection of a vehicle’s condition at a particular point in time.

It isn’t a substitute for proper vehicle maintenance.

A vehicle operated professionally should have systems capable of identifying serious defects between MOTs.

Tyres are an obvious example.

Regular checks should identify cuts, exposed cords, abnormal wear, incorrect pressures and other potentially dangerous problems before a vehicle is presented for test — and, more importantly, before it is used on the road.

The same principle applies to brakes, steering, suspension, lights and other safety-critical components.

Maintenance records matter too

Another important aspect of this case is that operator compliance isn’t simply about whether somebody occasionally looks at the vehicle.

Maintenance needs to be planned, recorded and managed.

Where an operator has committed to specified inspection intervals, those inspections need to take place.

Records should demonstrate what was inspected, what defects were identified, what remedial work was undertaken and when a vehicle was considered fit to return to service.

Drivers also have an important role through effective walkaround and defect reporting procedures.

When defects are found, there needs to be a clear process ensuring they are assessed and repaired appropriately.

An MOT failure can expose wider maintenance problems

For garages and MOT testers, cases like this illustrate why an MOT failure can sometimes reveal more than an isolated defect.

A vehicle arriving at an MOT station with a tyre damaged to the cord raises an obvious question: how was the defect not identified earlier?

In a professionally operated vehicle, the answer may involve driver checks, maintenance inspections, defect-reporting systems, management oversight or a combination of these.

That doesn’t mean every MOT failure indicates poor maintenance management.

Components can fail unexpectedly and defects can develop between inspections.

But where serious roadworthiness defects occur alongside poor records, missed maintenance schedules and wider compliance shortcomings, enforcement authorities may look beyond the immediate defect to examine how the vehicle is being managed.

Final warning issued to operator

The Traffic Commissioner has warned St Martins Preparatory School Limited that it must resolve all outstanding compliance issues and remain compliant in future.

The written decision states that if the operator fails to take advantage of what has effectively become a final opportunity and is called to another public inquiry, it could face significant further regulatory action.

The Commissioner also strongly recommended that the operator engage specialist external assistance with transport compliance.

For other organisations running minibuses and passenger vehicles, the case provides a straightforward lesson.

Passing an annual MOT isn’t a vehicle maintenance system.

Roadworthiness has to be managed every day the vehicle is in service.

And a safety-critical defect as basic as a badly damaged tyre can expose much wider failures in the systems that should have prevented that vehicle reaching the road — or the MOT station — in that condition.

Sources

Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain — School minibus operator suspended and fleet cut after serious compliance failings
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/school-minibus-operator-suspended-and-fleet-cut-after-serious-compliance-failings

Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain — Decision for St Martins Preparatory School Limited (PB0001701)
https://www.gov.uk/traffic-commissioner-regulatory-decisions/decision-for-st-martins-preparatory-school-limited-pb0001701

DVSA — Public Service Vehicle (PSV) inspection manual
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/psv-inspection-manual

DVSA — MOT inspection manual: Axles, wheels, tyres and suspension
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/5-axles-wheels-tyres-and-suspension