This is an aspect that again could be considered nationally.
I have seen some crime reports that appear to harp back to the 1980s, the content (‘enquiry’) conveying no useful information whatsoever:
“Vehicle left locked, secure and unattended. Unable to assist re suspects.”
It often surprises many insurers and police officers that we make enquiries under more than 15 separate headings. We take statements from the victims, we ensure the vehicle is recorded LoS (without contacting the police), we will consider the vehicle history, vehicle documentation and approach potential and actual witnesses (where available).
As with the release of a crime report, we could (subject to the insurer’s agreement) seek the insured’s consent to release our report to the police – it is a 2-way street. You may not need or want the information, but a private-LoS recording facility, or even the PNC, could be annotated to learn of our interest and the existence of a report in the event it is required.
Vehicle crime is recorded separately by the police with good reason and lends itself to greater liaison between police and insurers; the stolen (or otherwise) status of a vehicle is in the public domain, they are usually taken from the street (in the open). Vehicles are relatively easy to identify, high-value objects that are used on the road. They require documentation to use and are registered to someone or an entity (company).
Vehicles are found, recovered, stored, examined and released. Identifying an owner (usually an insurer) is generally straightforward. They are very different to, for example, small items taken in a burglary.
Possibly an MoU tweaked for vehicle crime should be considered?