Finding a reliable workshop where you have confidence in what you’re buying, just got easier with the launch of the industry’s Maintenance Provision Rating Scheme (MPRS).
After successful trials in 2024, the scheme is now live. It’s here to help raise the bar for commercial vehicle maintenance, by rating workshops on staff skills and facilities. This way, operators can easily find skilled maintenance providers to keep their vehicles safe to drive – and hopefully make more informed choices on finding a provider that suits their needs.
How it came about
The Institute of Road Transport Engineers (IRTE) are managing the scheme with support from us and the wider industry - this is a scheme for the industry, designed by the industry, to meet a need across the industry!
We’re fully behind the initiative as it aligns with our mission to improve industry standards and reduce the number of unsafe vehicles on the road. By supporting the scheme, we hope to enhance road safety and promote best practice.
How it will work
MPRS will rate workshops based on staff skills, processes and the quality of their facilities. The ratings range from ‘qualified’ for workshops with basic tools and staff skills, to ‘platinum’ for those with advanced facilities, top-tier staff and readiness for future vehicle trends.
This system isn’t an accreditation or regulation - it’s about setting standards and expectations for the people and the facility. Whether it’s a small independent workshop or a much larger dealership, workshops will be assessed and rated to help operators make an informed decision.
The benefits
We know that a lot of operators rely on external maintenance providers for all, or some, of their maintenance and vehicle inspections. Whilst there are accreditation schemes within the sector, there are some parts of the country where there aren’t many of those to choose from. Hopefully MPRS will become popular across the sector – giving operators much richer information.
Operators
MPRS is a valuable tool to help you pick the right provider for you. Choosing a workshop with an MPRS rating means your vehicles are more likely to be properly maintained and less likely to get prohibitions.
When outsourcing any maintenance work, it’s your responsibility to make sure the facility is adequately equipped and that work is completed to a satisfactory standard. This scheme helps by giving you confidence in the quality of work being carried out on your vehicles.
While picking the right maintenance provider is important, it’s just one piece of the puzzle. As set out in the Guide to maintaining roadworthiness: commercial goods and passenger carrying vehicles - GOV.UK, to keep vehicles safe, you need an effective overall system to plan maintenance, handle in-service defects, train drivers and other employees, load vehicles properly and related areas.
If you are outsourcing some or all of your maintenance and inspection, MPRS can guide you in making an informed choice, and understand a provider’s capabilities. This means you can find one that suits your needs – needs that will vary from operator to operator – for example, the types and usage of vehicles used or your in-house capabilities (for having oversight of work being done by your provider).
Maintenance providers
We would encourage maintenance providers, including independent workshops and dealership service centres, to consider signing up to MPRS.
Joining the scheme means you can:
- boost standards - achieving a rating shows your commitment to quality and professionalism
- build trust – a higher rating can attract more customers by proving your staff and facilities are reliable and top-quality
- be recognised - the scheme gives you external validation, which can enhance your credibility and reputation in the industry
- have a structure for improvement – providing entry levels, and clear information on standards to work up through the standard levels
Find out more
You can find out more about the scheme on the MPRS portal, including details on the ratings, how it will work and how to apply: https://mprs.org.uk/
8 comments
Comment by Bill Street posted on
The whole OCRS scheme is unfair. TC's are implying that Transport Managers now have to be qualified in order to check their MP. That is not the purpose of a TM and should never be. We are being asked to mental health practitioners, accountants, now mechanics and we are not paid enough by challenged operators. The OCRS scheme should be more fair and it is about time that DVSA realised we are not qualified to rate MP's and you are. This is just another poor scheme to make operators do all the work but still get unfairly penalised.
Comment by Vince Haines posted on
I think this is a great idea but it is ringing bells with other schemes like the IRTEC which just turned out to be another massive money earner for the organisers and never really improved any thing because A, it wasn't policed or backed up by the DVSA and B, didn't become a mandatory for all garages.
To drive real change in this industry policy's like this must become a must for it to really work. My question is how much is the DVSA really behind this and how will it be helping it to really drive change. If the answer is anything less than fully then I fear it will just become another money earner 'no fail' scheme which business owners will pump thousands of needless pounds into
Comment by Graham Nathan posted on
This will be very useful to Operators and Transport Managers alike, providing the reviews are kept current,
In many cases a maintenance provider is good initially but the service deteriorates as time goes by, this is often because either they rake on to much work or employ Technicians that are not of the same standard which may not always come to light until MOT failures.
It might be good to monitor providers to ensure they are not working for to many operators as is the case with own in house mechanics and Transport Managers, the Commissioners office could keep a record to ensure when an operators states there intended maintenance contractor is not acting for to many other Operators in accordance with how many people work for that company in accordance with how many axles they would be responsible for maintaining .
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Agree - and think good we get something in there.
I think key is we keep simple to start with - otherwise the scheme will not keep going.
I think there are lots of things that could be done in the future to potentially enhance the scheme - but we'll need to be careful not to get too complicated, or for government step too far into the detail of how businesses are managed.
So, I get the points you mention on workshops taking on more than they have capacity to do. Not an easy one to solve - but feels like an area where there are checks that the organisation contracting needs to ensure it has sufficient checks and balances to make sure it is still getting the service it is paying for. Perhaps this is an area that MPRS can evolve into - but let's get going to start with and that may be a direction that our industry wish to take this.
Comment by Amelia Earhart posted on
Again DVSA believe that just because a workshop is shiny and the larger organisations can afford to put employees through masses of shiny training, they are better than the smaller independent places.
"This system isn’t an accreditation or regulation - it’s about setting standards" no it is about accreditation as you have said that the "MPRS will rate workshops based on staff skills, processes and the quality of their facilities." so the big boys benefit and the smaller guys get disadvantaged
If its not an accreditation why have different levels of grading, if its not about saying one place is better than another why have platinum as a standard?
"The ratings range from ‘qualified’ for workshops with basic tools and staff skills, to ‘platinum’ for those with advanced facilities, top-tier staff and readiness for future vehicle trends."
Who says they are "top tier staff" , so that has graded people as well without any evidence of pass rates, breakdowns, turn over of work, rectification of faulty work, poor diagnosis.....non of this matter in the eyes of DVSA. After all, a companies use of a repair facility shouldn't be on the basis of a "platinum" badge, but on a proven track record in maintaining vehicles, high first time pass rates, quick and correct diagnosis and fair pricing. A rating scheme that doesn't take into consideration annual test pass rates is pretty useless.
Another hairbrained idea.
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Thanks Amelia. I am glad the mystery is finally solved.
To clarify - this is an industry led scheme that DVSA are supporting - so this is not something that we have just come up with.
The purpose of the scheme is, for those operators who choose to buy-in inspection and/or maintenance provision - to have some help in choosing a provider that best meets their needs. The intent of the scheme is to be able to cover the whole range of different shapes and sizes of provider - so operators can find one that best meets their needs, and have some means of transparency. Many operators rely on small independent providers - and that is great, and long may it continue. For those operators new to this and looking to find one - this scheme should help find one that meets their needs and is confident enough to have an independent view.
Initially this industry scheme is looking more at input measures - the workshop, qualification of staff and related. However, in the fullness of time the scheme may be able to include some better outcome measures.
You mention first time pass rates, and that is an option that could be considered. However, we do need to recognise that there is more to demonstrating consistent inspection skills than just that measure, and it can lead to the (unhelpful) behaviour of vehicles being well prepped for a test, and not maintained to that same level for the rest of the year.
Comment by david smith posted on
it is about time that the contractors that we all use should be accountable.
if they mess up , it is the operator that suffers .
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Thanks David.
The scheme hopefully will make it easier for an operator looking to find a provider to have some transparency on what they will get for their money.
It doesn't take responsibility from the operator - but should make it easier to fulfil that responsibility.