Doesn't look good, but where to start, apart from the usual misuse of the t-word?
For a start, how were the cars selected for testing? If random, then to a degree the report is fine, if they were targetted for some reason then the report presumably makes the trade seem worse than it is.
Then there's the fact that it's a garage inspection, and not just roadside checks. How many vehicles picked randomly off the public roads would fail an MoT? Quite a lot, I suspect, but the public are rarely checked in that way.
But the worst aspect is the headline, which states nine of the PHVs were 'fault-ridden'. However, the text of the article doesn't support that in any way, in fact the text reads like they only had one fault each, or at least it could be construed that way.
So in the round I suspect the headline and article makes the trade look worse than it actually is. So there's a few predictably critical comments from members of the public on the website. Which is fair enough to a degree, particularly in view of how the information is presented. But couldn't help notice this in particular:
Quote:
[...]There is absolutely no excuse for having unsafe vehicles when you realise the amount of time they stand waiting for fares...
Funny how the public perceive things...
Good photo, though
