NPCC FoIA response – ‘425/2024 PNC LoS Records Communication’
A copy of the communication issued by the NPCC (at or about the beginning of 11/2024) possibly resulting from our communication with the NPCC (and some constabularies) asking the police to reconsider whether weeding is necessary, beneficial or detracting from other operational duties.
It appears the process is archaic and unnecessary. Seemingly there is some agreement – Gwent constabulary has ceased the process; evidently, this can occur without any adverse effect (contrary to Surrey constabulary’s position. As for the Metropolitan Police Service, they cannot locate the communication!
But does the circular (below) following go far enough?
Is it the case that many VRMs should be recorded as LoS but have been ‘weeded’ and automatically fallen off the PNC LoS register thereby:
- reducing the likelihood of recovery (and/or prosecution of offenders)
- distorting recovery rates
- causing vehicle provenance companies to provide ‘clear’ (not stolen) reports to potential purchasers
Security Classification
NPCC Policy: Documents cannot be accepted or ratified without a security classification (Protective Marking may assist in assessing whether exemptions to FOIA may apply):
OFFICIAL
Freedom of information (FOI)
This document (including attachments and appendices) may be subject to an FOI request and the NPCC FOI Officer & Decision Maker will consult with you on receipt of a request prior to any disclosure. For external Public Authorities in receipt of an FOI, please consult with npcc.foi.request@npfdu.pollice.uk
Author: Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Sims, NPCC Lead for Vehicle Crime
Force/Organisation: Merseyside Police
Date Created: 7 th November 2024
Attachments @ para N/A
In compliance with the Government’s Security Policy Framework’s (SPF) mandatory requirements, please ensure any onsite printing is supervised, and storage and security of papers are in compliance with the SPF. Dissemination or further distribution of this paper is strictly on a need-to-know basis and in compliance with other security controls and legislative obligations. If you require any advice, please contact npcc.foi.request@npfdu.police.uk
Security policy framework – GOV.UK
For the attention of all Chief Constables
I am writing to request your assistance in the correct recording of all stolen vehicle reports via the Police National Computer (PNC). This request is part of an ongoing effort to ensure the accuracy and completeness of PNC records in relation to stolen vehicles.
Initially when a vehicle is reported stolen, a Lost or Stolen (LoS) marker is placed onto the PNC, and at first appears as an “unconfirmed” report. The PNC then requires the report to be confirmed and the time taken to do this varies by force. Some forces show the vehicle as “Confirmed stolen” immediately, others do not. Once confirmed, the vehicle will be marked as “Confirmed stolen” on the PNC and the DVLA updated to reflect the vehicle status.
Until the report is confirmed the DVLA at Swansea are not notified of the theft*.
Any activity on the DVLA record of the vehicle in question would not be referred to Police for investigation during this time*.
All confirmed reports remain on PNC for a period of 6 years**, whereby any unconfirmed reports are automatically weeded out after 42 days.
An issue has been brought to my attention regarding vehicles that are remaining recorded as “unconfirmed stolen” effectively dropping off the PNC after the specified weed period causing an inaccurate record of the vehicle status.
Could I ask that you check within your force whether all stolen vehicle reports are recorded as “confirmed” as stolen within 24hrs*** and seek to address should this not be the case. This will ensure the PNC, third party data users and other agencies, such as DVLA, databases accurately reflect a vehicle’s stolen status.
Thank you for your continued support and I appreciate your cooperation and assistance with the matter.
Jenny Sims (She/Her)
Assistant Chief Constable People Services
NPCC Lead for Vehicle Crime
Merseyside Police
* Is this an accurate account; is it the case that a PNC LoS stolen marker does not transfer to the DVLA until the report of ‘theft’ (taking – the difference is raised here) is ‘confirmed’ by a constabulary? Some constabularies approached about ‘weeding’ appear to receive a substantial number of weeded notifications, resulting in a backlog.
Ultimately, this may not be of concern if, upon confirmation, a constabulary is advised of any prior activity between the date of taking and the confirmation, but it appears to give rise to an unnecessary delay in acting upon what may be pertinent information.
** Why 6 years; why allow a LoS marker to fall from the PNC at all? Higher vehicle values, increased incidence of performance vehicles or even classics that do not diminish in value; why cause these to cease being recorded as stolen simply because a time has elapsed, as opposed to because they are recovered?
*** Why within 24 hours; why not immediately … why need to ‘confirm’ at all?
Wishing to understand what gave rise to this circular, a Freedom of Information Act request was made to the NPCC for:
- The exchanges with constabularies and within the NPCC that gave rise to the communication
- A copy of the communication
- The subsequent exchanges with constabularies about the communication; feedback, clarification etc.
The response (NPCC ref. 425/2024):
The NPCC does not hold information captured by parts 1 and 3 of your request.
Normal Standard of proof to apply in determining whether a public authority does hold any requested information is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. In deciding where the balance lies, the Information Commissioner considers the scope, quality, thoroughness and results of the searches carried out by the public authority as well as considering where appropriate, any other reasons offered by the public authority to explain
why the information is not held.
Checks have been made with the NPCC portfolio(s) for PNC, the NPCC press office and NaVCIS who confirm(s) no information held.
I have undertaken all of the necessary checks in establishing whether information is held which is captured by your request and any necessary steps with regard to retrieval of such information.
Searches have been conducted with the NPCC portfolio(s) that relates to the subject matter and I am satisfied that the search conducted to locate the information that you have requested has been robust.
There is no information held within the NPCC and I therefore conclude that the information that you seek is not held by the NPCC.
The NPCC does hold information captured by part two and I have pleasure in providing a copy of the letter to which I believe you refer dated 07/11/2024 authored by ACC Jenny Sims, NPCC Lead for Vehicle Crime [above]. The letter has been provided to you with minor S40(2) redaction of personal information.
