Date of Request
15/12/2025
Request
Dear FOI Team,
I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request information relating to the safety justification used by Hereford & Worcester Fire and Rescue Service (HWFRS) in the selection of officer response vehicles in 2019, and how that justification was subsequently relied upon in 2021.
The document titled “Volvo Replacement Justification” (2019) states that the Volvo XC60 was selected because it was:
“the only car on the market at this time that has a 100% NCAP rating.”
A subsequent document titled “SMB Officer Response Car Review” (2021), produced for the Senior Management Board, confirms that five vehicles were formally evaluated as part of the officer response car assessment:
• Volvo XC60
• Toyota RAV4
• Hyundai Santa Fe
• Volvo XC40
• Range Rover Evoque
Independent safety data published by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) shows that all five of these vehicles held 5-star Euro NCAP ratings at the relevant time.
This request seeks clarification of how Euro NCAP safety information was defined, interpreted, weighted, and applied within the 2019 Volvo Replacement Justification, and how that same justification was relied upon or carried forward within the 2021 SMB Officer Response Car Review.
1. Clarification of the “100% NCAP rating” statement (2019)
a) Confirmation of what was meant by the phrase “100% NCAP rating” as used in the document titled “Volvo Replacement Justification” (2019).
b) Confirmation of whether this phrase was intended to refer to:
• A 5-star overall Euro NCAP rating, or
• A percentage score within one or more Euro NCAP test categories, or
• Any other safety metric (please specify).
c) If the phrase refers to percentage scores within Euro NCAP test categories, please provide:
• The specific category or categories relied upon (e.g. Adult Occupant, Child Occupant, Vulnerable Road Users, Safety Assist).
• The exact Euro NCAP percentage score(s) for the Volvo XC60 relied upon in 2019.
• The Euro NCAP test year used.
2. Use of Adult Occupant scores in the 2019 decision
a) Confirmation of whether the Adult Occupant Euro NCAP percentage score (approximately 98% for the Volvo XC60) was relied upon as a decisive or differentiating factor in the 2019 selection process.
b) If yes, please provide:
• The Adult Occupant Euro NCAP percentage scores for all five vehicles evaluated in 2019.
• Any internal comparison tables, scoring sheets, evaluation matrices, or decision papers showing how these scores were assessed.
c) Confirmation of whether any threshold, minimum percentage difference, or formal decision rule was defined to justify selecting one vehicle over another on safety grounds.
3. Weighting of safety versus other evaluation factors (2019)
a) Details of how “safety” was weighted relative to other evaluation factors within the 2019 decision-making process, including:
• Cost
• Value for money
• Operational suitability
• Reliability
b) Confirmation of whether a higher Euro NCAP category score was permitted to override cost differences between vehicles, and where this weighting or permission was documented.
4. Rejection of other 5-star Euro NCAP vehicles
Given that the Toyota RAV4, Hyundai Santa Fe, Volvo XC40 and Range Rover Evoque all held 5-star Euro NCAP ratings at the time, please provide:
• The documented rationale for rejecting the Toyota RAV4 and Hyundai Santa Fe during the 2019 process.
• Any evidence showing that the safety difference between these vehicles and the Volvo XC60 was considered material or meaningful in real-world operational use.
5. Role of Euro NCAP in the 2019 and 2021 decisions
a) Confirmation of whether Euro NCAP safety ratings were the primary or decisive factor in the 2019 selection of the Volvo XC60, as set out in the “Volvo Replacement Justification” (2019).
b) If Euro NCAP safety ratings were not the primary or decisive factor, please identify which factor or factors were given greater weight.
c) Confirmation of whether the document titled “SMB Officer Response Car Review” (2021):
• Re-tested or re-evaluated safety and value-for-money against alternative vehicles, or
• Relied upon the conclusions and justification set out in the “Volvo Replacement Justification” (2019).
d) If the 2021 review relied upon the 2019 justification, please confirm where this reliance is documented.
Public Interest
This information is requested in the public interest. It relates to the expenditure of significant public funds and the accuracy of safety claims used to justify that expenditure.
For the avoidance of doubt, this request relates solely to historical decision-making and does not seek commercially sensitive pricing information, supplier bids, tender submissions, or live procurement data.
Transparency in how safety claims were interpreted and applied is essential for public accountability and value-for-money assurance.
If any information is withheld, please specify the exemption relied upon and explain how the public interest test supports non-disclosure.
Regards,
Response
Good afternoon,
We have conducted an Internal Review of FOI 423 12 25 as requested. Please find our response to your initial request below.
1. Clarification of the “100% NCAP rating” statement (2019)
a) Confirmation of what was meant by the phrase “100% NCAP rating” as used in the document titled “Volvo Replacement Justification” (2019).
Information not held as the author of the document has since retired from the service.
b) Confirmation of whether this phrase was intended to refer to:
• A 5-star overall Euro NCAP rating, or
• A percentage score within one or more Euro NCAP test categories, or
• Any other safety metric (please specify).
Information not held as the author of the document has since retired from the service.
c) If the phrase refers to percentage scores within Euro NCAP test categories, please provide:
• The specific category or categories relied upon (e.g. Adult Occupant, Child Occupant, Vulnerable Road Users, Safety Assist).
• The exact Euro NCAP percentage score(s) for the Volvo XC60 relied upon in 2019.
• The Euro NCAP test year used.
2017.
Please see Appendix 7 of the attached 2017 document, to summarise:
Table 1.
| Vehicle | Adult Occupant | Pedestrian | Safety Assist |
| Volvo | 98% | 76% | 95% |
| Skoda | 92% | 71% | 54% |
| Land Rover | 93% | 69% | 82% |
2. Use of Adult Occupant scores in the 2019 decision
a) Confirmation of whether the Adult Occupant Euro NCAP percentage score (approximately 98% for the Volvo XC60) was relied upon as a decisive or differentiating factor in the 2019 selection process.
Yes in 2017 (there was no replacement programme in 2019).
b) If yes, please provide:
• The Adult Occupant Euro NCAP percentage scores for all five vehicles evaluated in 2019.
The initial five vehicles were shortlisted to three vehicles (see paragraph 17 of the attached 2017 document).
• Any internal comparison tables, scoring sheets, evaluation matrices, or decision papers showing how these scores were assessed.
Please see Appendix 7 of the attached 2017 document, to summarise:
Table 1.
| Vehicle | Adult Occupant | Pedestrian | Safety Assist |
| Volvo | 98% | 76% | 95% |
| Skoda | 92% | 71% | 54% |
| Land Rover | 93% | 69% | 82% |
c) Confirmation of whether any threshold, minimum percentage difference, or formal decision rule was defined to justify selecting one vehicle over another on safety grounds.
See Appendix 7 of the 2017 document.
3. Weighting of safety versus other evaluation factors (2019)
a) Details of how “safety” was weighted relative to other evaluation factors within the 2019 decision-making process, including:
• Cost
• Value for money
• Operational suitability
• Reliability
b) Confirmation of whether a higher Euro NCAP category score was permitted to override cost differences between vehicles, and where this weighting or permission was documented.
4. Rejection of other 5-star Euro NCAP vehicles
Given that the Toyota RAV4, Hyundai Santa Fe, Volvo XC40 and Range Rover Evoque all held 5-star Euro NCAP ratings at the time, please provide:
• The documented rationale for rejecting the Toyota RAV4 and Hyundai Santa Fe during the 2019 process.
In 2017 – the five vehicles long listed were:
- Skoda Kodiaq
- Volvo XC60
- BMW X3 (below average reliability rating)
- Land Rover Discovery Sport (below average reliability rating)
- Jaguar F pace
The rationale for rejecting two of the five is detailed in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the 2017 document attached.
The cars referenced in the query above were considered in the 2021 replacement programme.
For details of why two cars were discounted from the longlist in 2021, please see the 2021 document attached at paragraph 8.
• Any evidence showing that the safety difference between these vehicles and the Volvo XC60 was considered material or meaningful in real-world operational use.
See appendix 4 of the 2017 document attached.
5. Role of Euro NCAP in the 2019 and 2021 decisions
a) Confirmation of whether Euro NCAP safety ratings were the primary or decisive factor in the 2019 selection of the Volvo XC60, as set out in the “Volvo Replacement Justification” (2019).
Yes for 2017. No for 2021. There was no 2019 process.
b) If Euro NCAP safety ratings were not the primary or decisive factor, please identify which factor or factors were given greater weight.
From 2021 Process:
| Supplier score out of 0-4 | Weighting | Points scored | Maximum points available | |
| 1. Vehicle Use | 4 | 35% | 80 | 80 |
| 2.Vehicle Derivative | 4 | 15% | 80 | 80 |
| 3. Engine | 4 | 10% | 60 | 60 |
| 4. Colour | 3 | 15% | 15 | 20 |
| 5. Safety | 1 | 10% | 20 | 80 |
| 6. Usability | 2 | 15% | 20 | 40 |
| 7. Operational | 2 | 15% | 10 | 20 |
| 8.Emergency Response | 1 | 15% | 5 | 20 |
| Total | 100% | 290 | 400 |
c) Confirmation of whether the document titled “SMB Officer Response Car Review” (2021):
• Re-tested or re-evaluated safety and value-for-money against alternative vehicles, or
• Relied upon the conclusions and justification set out in the “Volvo Replacement Justification” (2019).
d) If the 2021 review relied upon the 2019 justification, please confirm where this reliance is documented.
The 2017 process was not evaluated against the same criteria as the 2021 process. The 2021 document confirms that the vehicles must have a five-star safety rating with good individual scores, no less that 80% overall. Appendix 2 of the 2021 document details the Initial Car Compliance Check.
If you are not satisfied with the outcome of this internal review, you may appeal the decision by contacting the Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF, Tel: 0303 123 1113 (alternatively 01625 545745) or E-mail: casework@ico.org.uk.
Further information on Hereford & Worcester Fire and Rescue Service may be viewed at the Service’s website: www.hwfire.org.uk
Thank you for your request for information.
Kind regards,
Information Governance Team