08/02/2024 FoIA request @ WDTK – VRM LoS & Recovery information
I ask to be provided:
- the records for theft of a motor vehicle from 01/01/2023 to 31/01/2024 (inclusive) month on month i.e. the number of vehicle thefts notified each month, in Excel format, detailing:
a. the make and model of the vehicle
b. the vehicle categorisation i.e. car, HGV, moped etc
- whether the vehicles concerned have been recovered
Your unique reference number is 01/FOI/24/035822.
28/03/2024 MPS response:
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). Please see the legal annex for further information on the exemptions applied in respect of your request.
04/04/2024 – Request for Internal Review (IR)
I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)’s handling of my FOI request ‘VRM LoS & Recovery information’.
please provide the data in a format that enables me to identify which of the vehicles have been recovered. The data supplied provides totals but does not enable me to ascertain whether, for example, no lorries were recovered but all 4×4’s were.
Indeed, it is unclear whether the recoveries in, for example, January, relate to the thefts in that month or are cumulative i.e. represent vehicle found from thefts pre-dating 01/2023. I wish to understand this.
It can also not be determined whether the recoveries actually relate to MPS thefts i.e. whether, within the recovery number, vehicles reported stolen within other jurisdictions are included.
An example of a disclosure I am seeking can be found here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/v
Please, as far is possible, provide the data in the same format; recovery against the loss subject vehicle.
Please confirm the recovery data has been checked & verified; that the MPS are recovering 45% to 55% (approx.) of vehicles stolen.
It is noted a neighbouring constabulary (Kent) by way of example, has a recovery rate of about 5%, is unable to locate 19 out of 20 stolen vehicles, whereas the met has a 10-fold outcome, recovering 10 in every 20 vehicles. The difference is stark.
Please confirm the theft data has been checked & verified. Your records indicate 39,494 vehicles were stolen in 2023. The DVLA theft notifications from the MPS total 27,924 for 2023, a difference of about 40%. The MPS difference alone increases the theft total (all constabularies) by over 10%, from 106,000 to 118,000 i.e. it significantly skews the figures.
Please provide the information the MPS possess about notifications to the DVLA and why the numbers would differ so greatly.
Section 40(2)(a)(b)(3)(A)(i) – Personal Information.
Please explain how simply providing the make and model would fall to the exemption, the ‘potential risk of identifying those involved in the investigation’. This appears onerous, excessive. Others, to include the DVLA have identified make and model. I specifically avoided seeking the date of loss, just seeking the month to anonymise the data.
Other have provided the age denominators from the VRM. I did not seek this from you to ensure I did not, could not, fall foul of the exemption. It appears there is an intention to erode the vehicle data supplied.
If the entry is left blank, this would be the information provided (for 1,003 entries)
An ‘accurate illustration’ of what?
What personal information do you believe is being sought and how have you determined this information to be ‘personal’?
05/04/2024 – reference number is 01/FOI/24/037106.
10/05/2024 IR Response from the MPS:
Decision:
The MPS has completed its internal review and has varied its decision by providing you with additional disclosure. I have also addressed the points that you raised above.
Reasons for decisions:
Having reviewed your request, I do not consider that harm would be caused by the disclosure of the make and model of vehicles that have been recovered / not recovered as you have not asked for the specifics of each theft and the data is not broken down by location or exact date. As such, the identification of individuals is unlikely. Please find attached revised data.
You have asked us comparative questions regarding similar data provided to you by Kent Police and related data from other sources. It is not possible to compare the data as we do not know what parameters other police forces / organisations have used for extracting their data.
In order to assist you, the Data Analyst who retrieved and collated information for your request has advised the following considerations were made in respect of your data request:
All of the crime records which were recorded by MPS in the date period (1 January 2023 to 31 January 2024) and if a crime record had a code for stolen or recovered in the vehicle Status section of the crime record, they were considered for your request.
From there, we extracted a row of data for each vehicle that was stolen (and whether it was then recovered or not). Therefore, the final report was a count of vehicles stolen.
A dip sample of some records was conducted and all the address records stated on the record were those in London. In other words, we did not see any vehicles that were recorded stolen by MPS, but the address was outside of London.
It is possible that a vehicle could have been recovered sometime after 1 January 2023, but it would only show in this data set, if the crime that the stolen vehicle was associated with was recorded on or after 1 January 2023.
A crime that occurred before 1 January 2023 could be in this data set (for example a historic crime), if the crime was recorded on or after 1 January 2023.
The full response can be read here with the attachment.