Each 'fact' in the story was annotated with an explanation of why it was untrue.
The reporter who filed the story was one David Churchill, now Transport Editor and responsible for this latest piece of trash. Old habits die hard, I guess.
Except that "this latest piece of trash" appears to have been true, not journalistic invention.
I'm not sure. Shapps appears to have said the opposite (on number plates) in other interviews and many of the other claims appear to be somewhat exaggerated, in that ideas that are simply being thrown into the mix for consideration are reported as if they are done deals.
There's a lot of "may...: and "could..." rather than "will", which is the classic newspaper way of insinuating something that cannot be proven or confirmed. The Mail is very good at this - witness its notorious "Dark Secret" headline about the murdered Millie Dowler, for example.*
It's very easy for a reporter to frame a question in order to elicit the response that is desired, which is what I suspect Churchilll has done in sourcing his quotes from Shapps (or Shapps' spokesperson).
* In the early days following Millie Dowler's disappearance the police visited her school and asked the pupils whether they were aware of any friends or acquaintances she might have outside the school who might not be known to her parents. The Mail twisted this into a strong suggestion that she might have a 'secret' boyfriend and ran the story on the front page under the headline "Millie's Dark Secret".