01 · Arrive
Create or find the donor record
The vehicle identity, source, arrival reference and available documents are brought together. A mismatch remains visible for authorised staff to resolve.
Keep the donor vehicle, intake evidence, destruction status and recovered-parts record connected without replacing a working dismantling or stock platform. Your authorised staff retain every statutory, treatment and grading decision.
Fixed scopeQuoted before work starts
Human controlDecisions stay with your team
Honest boundaryKeep existing systems where they work
A dismantling platform may already cover much of this journey. We identify the unsupported handoff—often evidence capture, duplicate entry, location updates or retrieval—and connect it to the record your team already trusts.
01 · Arrive
The vehicle identity, source, arrival reference and available documents are brought together. A mismatch remains visible for authorised staff to resolve.
02 · Evidence
Images, documents and recorded checks stay linked to the vehicle and event rather than being scattered across phones, folders and paper files.
03 · Record
An authorised person records the relevant treatment or destruction status in the approved system. Automation carries the fact; it does not make the decision.
04 · Recover
A reusable item can inherit the donor reference and known vehicle details while description, condition and grading stay with the responsible team member.
05 · Locate
A confirmed shelf, bay or container movement updates the supported stock record. Unrecorded physical movement cannot be corrected by a dashboard.
06 · Retrieve
Search or reconciliation can bring the vehicle, part, location and supporting record together without creating an ungoverned duplicate database.
This is an illustrative information flow. The exact fields, decisions and approved systems come from the ATF's own process and responsibilities.
A working vehicle and parts platform should remain the system of record. We assess its documented API, exports, imports and supported workflows, then quote the smallest connection that removes duplicate work or makes missing evidence visible.
Useful connection points
Separate commercial scope
The traceability boundary: a system can preserve a donor link only when the identifier is recorded at recovery and maintained at each later movement. Software cannot reconstruct an unrecorded physical history with certainty.
GOV.UK describes the DVLA certificate of destruction and notification of destruction service for authorised treatment facilities. The ATF remains responsible for using the correct service and keeping accurate records; Inferred does not issue a certificate or make that statutory decision on the operator's behalf.
CoD and NoD
A bounded workflow may make the intake evidence and recorded outcome easier to retrieve. The authorised user still completes the official route and remains responsible for what is submitted.
Waste receiving records
If the site also needs to prepare receiving records for mandatory digital waste tracking, see our separate digital waste tracking readiness review. It maps the data and named submission route without claiming compliance.
Written into every scope: which system owns the vehicle record, who makes and submits statutory decisions, what the automation copies, and how incomplete or conflicting evidence is handled.
Primary guidance: Certificate of destruction and notification of destruction service and end-of-life vehicle guidance for waste sites, GOV.UK.
Automation project
Not included
When we would tell you not to buy: if your current platform already connects the donor, evidence, recovered part and location—and the team uses it consistently—another workflow would create a second place to maintain.
Usually not. We first establish which record it owns and which supported interfaces it offers. The useful project is normally an unsupported handoff around the platform, not a new platform.
No. The authorised treatment facility uses the official DVLA route and remains responsible for the submission and accuracy. We can only scope supporting record flow around that process.
Not automatically. Receiving-site reporting is a separate data and submission workstream. Our readiness review maps it explicitly before any integration is proposed.
No. It can carry confirmed vehicle details and references into a draft record. Identification, condition, grading, interchange and suitability decisions remain with competent people and trusted data sources.
If the current record process is quick, consistent and easy to retrieve, automation may not repay its cost. We measure the duplicate effort and exception load before recommending a build.
Yes. Processing can run on infrastructure you control. We still map the existing email, platform and backup routes so the privacy boundary is accurate rather than assumed.
The first call is fifteen minutes and free. We will trace where the link breaks, what your current platform supports and whether a small operational workflow is worthwhile.
If the honest answer is that the process needs the system rebuilt rather than one step automated, that is a bespoke parts, collection and dismantling system.