260105 Gwent Police complaint timeline

Contents

05/01/2026 – the complaint was submitted

The complaint and covering email:

To: ‘PSD’ PSD@gwent.police.uk
Subject: Formal Complaints – Mandatory Registration Required (Police Reform Act 2002)

Dear Professional Standards Department,

Please find attached a formal complaint submitted under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

This complaint raises multiple, distinct heads of complaint, including conduct, integrity, governance, and systemic operational failure. Each head is clearly set out and requires separate recording and outcome determination.

For the avoidance of doubt:

  • This is not informal correspondence.
  • This is not a continuation of a closed complaint.
  • This is not a service dissatisfaction issue.

Please confirm, in writing:

  1. That the complaints have been formally recorded.
  2. The reference number(s) assigned.
  3. The complaint handling pathway and review rights.

I request that responses address the complaint by reference to each head

To reinforce the concerns relating to ‘weeding’ I have additionally attached a document ‘The Extent of Weeding’, which examines the potential systemic under-recording of stolen vehicles arising from police processes governing the confirmation and deletion (“weeding”) of Lost or Stolen (LoS) vehicle markers on the Police National Computer (PNC).

21/01/2026 to the IOPC – ‘a significant situation’ & ‘the extent of weeding’

To: !enquiries enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk
Subject: FW: Formal Complaints – Mandatory Registration Required (Police Reform Act 2002)

Please would you register the below and attached complaint in respect of which we have not even received an acknowledgement.

Please also note the document attached ‘The Extent of Weeding’. We would welcome you recommendations about progressing the concern raised, what appears to be a significant situation we have investigated due in part, to Gwent’s repeated failings.

02/02/2026 to Gwent PSD requesting the complaint status

To: PSD@gwent.police.uk
Cc: Commissioner@gwent.police.uk; JointLegalServices@south-wales.police.uk
Subject: FW: Formal Complaints – Mandatory Registration Required (Police Reform Act 2002)

I write to seek confirmation of the status of my formal complaint submitted to Gwent Police on 5 January 2026 under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

The complaint was expressly framed as a formal statutory complaint, raising multiple, distinct heads requiring separate recording and determination. It was made clear that it was not informal correspondence, not service dissatisfaction, and not a continuation of any previously closed matter.

To date, I have received no acknowledgement or confirmation that the complaint has been recorded.

Accordingly, please confirm, in writing:

  1. Whether the complaint has been formally recorded under Schedule 3;
  2. The reference number or numbers assigned to each recorded head of complaint;
  3. The complaint handling pathway being applied, including applicable review rights and timescales.

If the complaint (or any part of it) has not been recorded, please provide a written explanation identifying the statutory basis relied upon and the decision-maker responsible.

Given the statutory nature of the complaint and the time that has now elapsed, I would be grateful for confirmation by return.

17/02/2026 to Gwent PSD – copy of 05/01/2025 complaint submission


To: PSD <psd@gwent.police.uk>; Commissioner <commissioner@gwent.police.uk>
Cc: ‘Mark.Hobrough@gwent.pnn.police.uk’ <Mark.Hobrough@gwent.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: FW: Formal Complaints – Mandatory Registration Required (Police Reform Act 2002)
Importance: High

Copy 17/02/2026

17/02/2026 from Gwent police staff officer – review & response ‘soon’

From: Jones, Katie T Katie.Jones2@gwent.police.uk
Subject: RE: Formal Complaints – Mandatory Registration Required (Police Reform Act 2002)

Thank you for email and sharing your concerns with Deputy Chief Constable Nicky Brain.

Please be advised I have taken your concerns seriously and have forwarded them, along with the attached document, to the Inspector within our Professional Standards Department.

I have requested the Inspector to review the matter and respond to you accordingly. You will receive a response from the appropriate department soon.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Kind regards

Katie Jones
Sergeant
Staff Officer to the Deputy Chief Constable

17/02/2026 to Gwent Police – thank you

To: Jones, Katie T Katie.Jones2@gwent.police.uk; Brain, Nicola nicola.brain@gwent.police.uk
Subject: RE: Formal Complaints – Mandatory Registration Required (Police Reform Act 2002)

Thank you for your response.

For clarity, the complaint concerns handling within the Professional Standards Department. I therefore trust appropriate independence will be maintained in the review process.

I look forward to the Inspector’s response.

23/03/3036 to Gwent PSD re lack of acknowledgement, recording and reference.

Dear Professional Standards Department,

I write further to my formal complaint submitted on 5 January 2026 under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002, and subsequent chasers dated 2 February and 17 February 2026.

To date, I have received no acknowledgment, no confirmation of recording, and no reference number.

This is not a matter of administrative delay. The absence of any recording decision indicates a failure to discharge the statutory duty to record a complaint.

For clarity, I require written confirmation of:

  1. Whether the complaint has been formally recorded;
  2. The reference number(s) assigned;
  3. The complaint handling pathway applied;
  4. My review rights.

If the complaint (or any part of it) has not been recorded, please provide:

• The statutory basis relied upon; and
• The identity of the decision-maker responsible.

In the absence of a substantive response, I will proceed on the basis that Gwent Police has failed to comply with its statutory obligations and will escalate the matter accordingly.

I reserve the right to place this matter in the public domain, including through the press and online publication, given the issues raised concerning statutory compliance and public accountability.

Timeline Annex – Gwent Police Complaint Recording Failure

5 January 2026
• Formal complaint submitted to Gwent Police PSD under Schedule 3 Police Reform Act 2002
• Complaint explicitly identified as statutory
• Multiple heads of complaint set out
• Request made for:
o Recording confirmation
o Reference number(s)
o Handling pathway and review rights

2 February 2026
• Follow-up email sent to PSD
• No acknowledgment or response received
• Email copied to:
o Police and Crime Commissioner
o Joint Legal Services

17 February 2026
• Further follow-up sent
• No acknowledgment or response received

As at present date
• No confirmation of complaint recording
• No reference number issued
• No indication of handling pathway
• No response to any correspondence

Position
• Complaint remains unacknowledged and unrecorded
• Indicates failure to discharge statutory duty to record complaint

23/03/3026 to Gwest Police & Crime Commissioner re complaints breakdown

To: ‘Commissioner’ Commissioner@gwent.police.uk
Cc: Nicola.Brain@gwent.police.uk; Katie.Jones2@gwent.police.uk;
Subject: FW: Formal Complaints – Mandatory Registration Required (Police Reform Act 2002)
Importance: High

Dear Commissioner,

I write to raise a concern regarding the apparent breakdown in statutory complaints handling within Gwent Police.

On 5 January 2026, I submitted a formal complaint under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002. Despite follow-up correspondence on 2 February and 17 February 2026, I have received no acknowledgment, no confirmation of recording, and no reference number.
The issue is not delay, but the apparent failure to comply with the statutory duty to record a complaint.

This raises broader concerns regarding:

  • The operation and oversight of the Professional Standards Department;
  • Compliance with statutory complaint recording requirements;
  • The accuracy and integrity of complaint data;
  • Governance and reputational risk to the force.

I would be grateful if you could confirm:

  1. Whether you are aware of any issues affecting complaint recording within Gwent Police;
  2. What oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance with statutory obligations;
  3. What action, if any, will be taken in light of this matter.

Given the systemic implications, I consider this to be a matter of governance rather than an isolated issue.

I reserve the right to place this matter in the public domain, including through the press and online publication, given the issues raised concerning statutory compliance and public accountability.

23/03/2026 from Gwent Police – acknowledgement

From: COEST COEST@gwent.police.uk
Subject: Re: Formal Complaints – Mandatory Registration Required (Police Reform Act 2002)

Thank you for your email correspondence that has been acknowledged in the office of Chief Constable Hobrough.

This has been sent on to our Professional Standards Department,

Regards,

Sean Fletcher Arolygydd yr Heddlu / Police Inspector
Staff Officer to Chief Constable Mark Hobrough
Chief Officer Executive Support Team (COEST)
Heddlu Gwent Police

23/03/2026 to COEST@gwent.police.uk

Cc: Commissioner Commissioner@gwent.police.uk;
Subject: PNC LoS ‘Weeding’ – Data Discrepancy Requiring Clarification
Importance: High

Thank you for your response.

I write to raise a specific issue which sits at the core of my complaint and which, in my view, requires substantive clarification.

My concerns relate to Gwent Police’s handling of Lost or Stolen (LoS) vehicle markers on the Police National Computer (PNC), in particular the processes surrounding confirmation and subsequent “weeding”.

I have identified a substantial discrepancy between:

  • The number of vehicles recorded by Gwent Police as lost or stolen; and
  • The number of corresponding ‘stolen’ notifications received by the DVLA from Gwent Police.

While I recognise that some divergence between these datasets is expected, the scale of the discrepancy observed in Gwent’s data appears materially greater than that seen in other constabularies. This raises a concern that a proportion of vehicles reported as stolen may:

  • Not be confirmed on the PNC; and/or
  • Be subject to automatic deletion (“weeding”) prior to confirmation;

with the result that:

  • The DVLA is not notified; and
  • The vehicle no longer appears as lost or stolen on either system.

If correct, this would have significant implications for:

  • Crime recording integrity;
  • Victim outcomes; and
  • The accuracy of national datasets.

I would therefore ask that Gwent Police:

  1. Review the discrepancy between PNC LoS records and DVLA stolen notifications;
  2. Confirm whether any analysis has been undertaken into the impact of “weeding” on unconfirmed LoS markers;
  3. Provide an explanation for the scale of the variance identified.

Separately, I note that my attempts to obtain clarity through the Freedom of Information process have been unsuccessful, and in some instances appear to have been mischaracterised. I do not expand on that here, but reserve my position.

Given the potential systemic implications, I consider this issue to warrant formal investigation.

I reserve the right to place this matter in the public domain, given the issues raised concerning data integrity and public accountability.

04/04/2026 to Mr Hill Gwent PSD re lack of update

To: Commissioner Commissioner@gwent.police.uk
Subject: Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct, Misrepresentation and Failure to Address PNC “Weeding” Issue

I refer to our telephone conversation of 23 March 2026, for which I thank you.

You indicated that you had recently been allocated this matter, that it involves multiple parties and complexities, and that you intend to prepare a formal report. You also made clear that this will take time.

However, I note:

a) I have not received any written introduction or confirmation of your appointment
b) I have not been provided with a timescale
c) There has been no formal acknowledgement of the scope of my complaint

Please provide this information.

  1. Nature of the Complaint – Escalation Through Conduct

The underlying issue I raised in early 2024 was straightforward:

A systemic flaw (“weeding”) within PNC LoS processes leading to stolen vehicles being removed and never reaching DVLA.

This was raised in good faith, with a view to assisting.

However, the matter has escalated significantly due to the conduct of Gwent Police personnel, namely:

a) Misrepresentation of facts
b) Obstruction of information
c) Inappropriate and defensive communications
d) Attempts to close down scrutiny
e) Failure to properly record and progress complaints

I anticipate each facet will be explored and explained.

  1. Misrepresentation – [GW01]

It is asserted within Gwent Police correspondence that:
[GW01] identified and addressed the weeding issue independently, prior to my involvement.

This is demonstrably incorrect.

• I raised the issue with Gwent Police in May 2024 (evidenced via WhatDoTheyKnow)
• Internal timelines (as partially disclosed) indicate activity from September/October 2024 onwards

The chronology is therefore clear. This gives rise to a serious concern:

That facts have been misrepresented internally and externally, potentially to attribute ownership of the issue incorrectly.

I do not speculate lightly, but the available evidence suggests:

a) Either inaccurate reporting internally, or
b) A deliberate attempt to recast events

Both raise questions of integrity.

  1. Conduct of [GW04]

My complaint was treated dismissively, the issue diluted and challenged from the outset.

a) Why?

  1. Conduct of [GW02] – Inducement

During my interaction with [GW02], I was effectively presented with the following position; If I accepted an apology and did not pursue the matter, a working relationship with Gwent Police could continue.

The implication was equally clear: If I did not, that relationship would not exist.

I considered this:

a) Inappropriate
b) Coercive
c) Incompatible with a formal complaint process

Complaint handling must be:

• Transparent
• Free from influence
• Independent

This interaction did not meet those standards.

  1. Disclosure / FOI Conduct – Misrepresentation to ICO

Gwent Police asserted to the ICO that I had made eight FOI requests.

In fact:

• I made three

The ICO confirmed this in Decision Notice Reference: IC-355444-P4T3 a copy of which I have placed here –https://carcrime.uk/250829-ico-gwent-police/

a) Why were facts misrepresented?

Gwent Police were invited to substantiate their position and did not do so. This too is evidenced in the Decision Notice.

This raises a further concern:

That false or misleading information was provided to the ICO in order to support a “vexatious” position.

This is not a minor procedural issue. It goes directly to:

• Accuracy of representations
• Integrity of process
• Fairness of treatment

It is also difficult to understand why a disclosure unit, acting in relation to the FoIA, would elect to ignore the ICO’s request for clarification, explanation. It appears Gwent police could not answer without incriminating themselves.

This conduct, in particular from law enforcement, is staggering.

b) I await a comprehensive explanation for the conduct which, I assume, was overseen by [GW06], the head of department.

The conduct appears, as with other issues, to fall to:

c) false representation
d) failing to disclose information
e) abuse of position

  1. Disclosure Unit / Phoenix Bureau Conduct

My attempts to understand and resolve the issue were met with:

a) Intervention from Disclosure staff in matters unrelated to disclosure
b) Focus on peripheral issues (e.g. contact details)
c) Failure by relevant operational staff to respond as agreed

This created the impression of:

d) A coordinated effort to control, deflect, or limit engagement, rather than address the issue.

  1. The “Weeding” Issue – Ongoing Risk

For completeness, I reiterate:

  • Unconfirmed PNC LoS markers:
    • Do not reach DVL
    • Are removed after ~6 weeks (Day 43)
  • Once removed:
    • The vehicle appears clear
    • Recovery likelihood is reduced
    • Criminal use is facilitated

This is not theoretical.

Your own data (and my independent analysis) indicate significant discrepancies between:

  • Police recorded thefts
  • DVLA stolen vehicle records

This strongly suggests systemic loss of records.

Despite this:

• I have not been provided with meaningful data
• I have not been provided with audit evidence
• I have been labelled vexatious for seeking answers

  1. Failure to Act on Prior Correspondence

I wrote repeatedly:

• January 2026
• February 2026
• Earlier complaints in 2024

No meaningful response was received.

However, following my escalation on 23 March 2026, I received immediate contact.
I therefore request a clear explanation:

a) Who received my prior correspondence
b) What action was taken
c) Why no response was issued
d) What specifically triggered the response on 23 March

  1. Required Actions

In order to progress this matter, I require:

Complaint Handling

a) Formal confirmation of:
i. Complaint scope
ii. Allegations recorded
iii. Investigating officer (yourself confirmed in writing)

b) A clear timetable for progression

Evidence & Records

a) Confirmation of:
i. Internal correspondence relating to weeding
ii. Dates of process change
iii. Any Phoenix Bureau communications or instructions
b) Clarification of FOI representations made to ICO

Weeding Audit

a) Explanation of:
i. How unconfirmed LoS records are monitored
ii. Whether Gwent audits weeded records
iii. Whether reinstatement occurs where appropriate

  1. Closing Position

This matter did not need to reach this stage. As I explained during our call:

A simple acknowledgement and engagement at the outset would have resolved this.
Instead, the response has been:

• Defensive
• Obstructive
• At times misleading

That has created a situation where a relatively contained operational issue now raises wider concerns regarding conduct, integrity, and governance.

I trust your investigation will address these matters fully.

I look forward to your written confirmation and response.

Should you not possess copies of the relevant conversations, please advise and I will locate & forward these.

Given the seriousness of the issues raised, and the extent to which they now engage matters of public interest, https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/auto-motor/dvla-and-police-theft-figures-diverge-further-report-finds-570043.aspx ,
I reserve the right to place these matters into the public domain. Any such publication will be carefully considered and presented through my platform at carcrime.uk.

15/04/2026 from Mr Hill Gwent PSD – complaint is with PS Hughes:

Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct, Misrepresentation and Failure to Address PNC “Weeding” Issue

Good morning Mr Swift, I wish to update you, that your complaint is sitting with PS Amy Hughes for review.

I am not in a position to provide any exact timescales, but I will certainly be discussing the matter with my sergeant and progress the matters you have raised.

05/05/2026 to Mr Hill Gwent PSD – seeking response by 08/05/2026

Subject: Formal Complaint – Request for timescale, SAR completeness and PNC/DVLA anomaly

Thank you for your email of 15 April 2026 confirming that my complaint is presently with PS Amy Hughes for review.

I also note that the matter is presently being considered at sergeant level. I do not make that observation as a criticism of the officer concerned. However, I am concerned that the complaint includes issues involving PSD itself and, in particular, the conduct of a senior PSD Officer who appears to sit above, or at least within the same supervisory structure as, the officers now reviewing or progressing my complaint. One of my concerns is that I was placed under inappropriate pressure to withdraw or limit a complaint, and that this conduct cannot sensibly be reviewed by officers who may be line-managed by, or operationally subordinate to, the very personnel whose conduct forms part of the complaint. That creates, at minimum, an apparent conflict of interest and a legitimate concern about independence.

In those circumstances, I ask Gwent Police to confirm whether the complaint will be referred for independent handling, whether by an external constabulary or another suitably independent route, and if not, to explain why Gwent Police considers internal handling appropriate despite the involvement of PSD and more senior personnel in the matters complained of.

I would also be grateful if Gwent Police could now provide an indicative timescale for the conclusion of that review, or at least confirm the next procedural step and when I should expect a substantive update.

I remain concerned that my complaint is not confined simply to the underlying PNC “weeding” issue. It also concerns Gwent Police’s handling of my related FOIA requests and the representations made to the Information Commissioner’s Office in support of a section 14 refusal.

As you will be aware, the ICO has now issued a Decision Notice in which Gwent Police’s reliance on section 14 was not upheld. That decision is now in the public domain. A central concern for me remains that the position advanced to the ICO gave an inaccurate impression of the number, nature and burden of my requests. That is a serious matter, particularly where the effect was to portray legitimate public-interest enquiries as vexatious.

I would therefore expect the complaint response to address, in clear terms:

  1. who approved the representations made to the ICO;
  2. what checking was undertaken before those representations were advanced;
  3. why the position was not corrected once the true position became apparent;
  4. what steps Gwent Police has taken to ensure that future FOIA submissions to the ICO are accurate, evidenced and fair;
  5. whether any contact took place with the NPCC or other national policing bodies concerning me, my requests, or the PNC “weeding” issue.

I also remain concerned about the completeness of the information provided to me in response to my subject access request. My enquiries indicate that Gwent Police has had contact with the NPCC concerning my requests. I have not, however, been provided with the correspondence sent by Gwent Police to the NPCC, nor any NPCC material disclosed or circulated to Gwent Police concerning me.

This is particularly important given that I understand the NPCC circulated requester-specific material in 2024 concerning my FoIA activity. If Gwent Police received, relied upon, forwarded, stored, or otherwise processed such material, I would expect that to have been identified and addressed within the SAR response, subject of course to any properly applied exemptions.

Please therefore confirm whether Gwent Police has searched for:

  • correspondence between Gwent Police and the NPCC concerning me, my FOIA requests, or PNC “weeding”;
  • any NPCC circular, alert, advice note, or requester-specific communication concerning me;
  • any internal Gwent Police discussion arising from such NPCC material;
  • any material relied upon when Gwent Police advanced its section 14 position to the ICO.

Finally, I wish to return to the original public-interest issue which prompted my approaches.

I have now undertaken a wider comparison between police-recorded vehicle theft figures and DVLA lost/stolen figures. Across the material I have reviewed, there appears to be a substantial national discrepancy. Gwent Police appears to feature among the constabularies with a particularly marked anomaly, potentially exceeding 60%.

I do not suggest at this stage that PNC “weeding” explains the entirety of that discrepancy. However, it remains a plausible and serious explanation for at least part of it: namely, that vehicles recorded locally as stolen may not be appearing as stolen on the PNC/DVLA data route because records have been removed, not confirmed, or otherwise failed to progress through the expected national process.

That issue is plainly capable of affecting victims, insurers, provenance checks, vehicle recovery, and the reliability of public vehicle crime data. It should not, in my view, be treated merely as an FoIA handling dispute.

I would therefore urge Gwent Police to undertake, or at least consider, an internal audit comparing locally recorded stolen vehicle reports against PNC/DVLA lost or stolen markers, with particular attention to any records removed or affected by “weeding” processes. If helpful, I remain willing to provide the raw comparative information I have obtained.

I should also make clear that I have, to date, deliberately held back from placing detailed comparative material concerning Gwent Police’s lost/stolen vehicle records into the public domain, notwithstanding the apparent scale of the anomaly identified. I have done so to allow Gwent Police a fair opportunity to consider the issue, respond constructively, and, if appropriate, undertake its own audit before wider public commentary follows. However, given the continuing delay and the public-interest implications for victims, insurers, vehicle provenance, recovery opportunities and the reliability of official vehicle crime data, I now reserve the right to publish that material and my analysis of it. If Gwent Police wishes to provide context, explanation, correction, or confirmation before I do so, I would ask that this be addressed urgently within the substantive update requested.

Given the seriousness of these matters, I would be grateful for a substantive update by close of business on Friday 8 May 2026.

28/05/2026 to Mr Hill Gwent PSD – lack of response

To: Hill, James <James.Hill2@gwent.police.uk>; COEST <COEST@gwent.police.uk>
Cc: enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk; enquiries@hmicfrs.gov.uk; Commissioner <Commissioner@gwent.police.uk>
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct, Misrepresentation and Failure to Address PNC “Weeding” Issue
Importance: High

Dear Mr Hill,

I refer to your email of 15 April 2026, in which you confirmed that my complaint was sitting with PS Amy Hughes for review and that you would be discussing the matter with your sergeant.

I also refer to my detailed email of 5 May 2026, to which I have received no substantive response.

I am now concerned that Gwent Police has failed to provide the required progress updates in respect of a formal complaint raising serious issues of conduct, disclosure, complaint handling, Professional Standards Department involvement, representations made to the Information Commissioner’s Office, and the unresolved PNC lost/stolen “weeding” issue.

My understanding is that the complaints framework requires complainants to be kept properly informed of progress, with updates provided promptly and, in any event, at four-week intervals.

On any view, no meaningful update has been provided since 15 April 2026. That is unsatisfactory, particularly given the seriousness of the matters raised and the fact that my subsequent correspondence has also gone unanswered.

For clarity, my complaint is not a narrow service complaint. It includes concerns that:

  1. Gwent Police misrepresented the number, nature and burden of my FOIA requests to the Information Commissioner’s Office in support of a section 14 position;
  2. Gwent Police failed to substantiate or correct that position when invited to do so by the ICO;
  3. the ICO subsequently issued a Decision Notice in which Gwent Police’s reliance on section 14 was not upheld;
  4. I was presented, by a senior PSD officer, with what I considered to be inappropriate pressure or inducement to withdraw or limit my complaint;
  5. PSD itself is therefore directly implicated in the matters complained of;
  6. the matter appears to involve officers and staff within the same supervisory structure as those now reviewing or progressing the complaint;
  7. I remain without confidence that searches, disclosure, SAR handling or complaint handling by Gwent Police can safely be relied upon without independent scrutiny.

The independence concern is now central. I do not make this point as a criticism of PS Hughes or any individual officer simply because of rank. The difficulty is that the complaint extends to the conduct of PSD itself and, in particular, to the conduct of a senior PSD officer who appears to sit above, or within the same supervisory structure as, those now handling the complaint. That creates, at minimum, an apparent conflict of interest.

It is difficult to see how a complaint involving PSD conduct, senior PSD involvement, alleged pressure to withdraw or limit a complaint, and potentially inaccurate representations to the ICO can properly be handled solely within Gwent Police. That is especially so where the complaint also concerns the completeness and reliability of Gwent Police’s own disclosure and SAR responses.

In those circumstances, I ask that Gwent Police now confirm whether this matter will be referred for independent handling by an external constabulary or another genuinely independent route. If Gwent Police refuses to do so, please provide a clear written explanation as to why internal handling is considered appropriate despite the involvement of PSD and more senior personnel in the matters complained of.

I also ask that Gwent Police now provide, within seven days:

  1. confirmation of the current status of my complaint;
  2. the date on which it was formally recorded;
  3. the complaint reference number;
  4. the full recorded scope of the complaint and allegations;
  5. the identity, rank and department of the person currently responsible for progressing it;
  6. confirmation of whether that person is line-managed by, subordinate to, or otherwise within the same PSD structure as any person whose conduct is complained of;
  7. the reason no substantive response was provided to my email of 5 May 2026;
  8. the reason no four-week update appears to have been provided following the 15 April 2026 update;
  9. confirmation of whether Gwent Police has considered referral to the IOPC or independent handling by another force;
  10. confirmation of whether the Chief Constable has been made aware of the complaint and the independence concerns now raised.

I am copying this correspondence to the IOPC, the Police and Crime Commissioner, and the Chief Constable because I do not consider this to be a routine complaint-handling delay. It concerns the integrity of complaint handling, disclosure, representations to a statutory regulator, and whether Gwent Police can properly investigate itself where PSD conduct is directly in issue.

I also wish to make clear that the PNC lost/stolen “weeding” issue remains live. I will write separately about that specific operational and public-interest issue. For present purposes, I simply record that the underlying concern has now been ongoing for a very considerable period, that I have attempted to assist Gwent Police in good faith, and that I remain without any meaningful assurance that the issue has been properly audited, escalated, or resolved.

I have been reasonable and patient. I have allowed Gwent Police time to engage constructively. I have also held back from placing the full comparative data concerning Gwent Police’s lost/stolen vehicle records into the public domain. However, given the absence of meaningful engagement, I now reserve the right to publish that material and my analysis of it, subject to any urgent explanation, correction or context Gwent Police may provide.

Please treat this as a formal request for immediate escalation.

Unless I receive a substantive response within seven days, I will ask the IOPC, the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable to consider whether Gwent Police’s handling of this matter is itself now evidence of the lack of independence, candour and procedural fairness complained of.

28/05/2026 from Mr Hill Gwent PSD, to provide ‘suitable timescales’

Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct, Misrepresentation and Failure to Address PNC “Weeding” Issue

Good morning Mr Swift, I will speak with PS Hughes on Monday morning and ask that the matter is reviewed and provide you with some suitable timescales.

28/05/2026 to Mr Hill Gwent PSD re unsatisfactory reponse

To: enquiries@hmicfrs.gov.uk; enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk; ‘Commissioner’ Commissioner@gwent.police.uk; COEST@gwent.police.uk
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct, Misrepresentation and Failure to Address PNC “Weeding” Issue

With respect, that response is unsatisfactory.

My complaint has been with Gwent Police for a considerable period. Your last meaningful update was on 15 April 2026, when you advised that the matter was sitting with PS Hughes for review. I then wrote again in detail on 5 May 2026, raising serious concerns about independence, PSD involvement, the accuracy of representations made to the Information Commissioner’s Office, SAR completeness, NPCC contact and the unresolved PNC Lost/Stolen “weeding” issue.

I asked for a substantive update by 8 May 2026.

No such update was provided.

Your latest response does not provide a progress update, does not explain the delay, does not confirm the status or scope of the complaint, does not identify any timescale, and does not address the independence concern. It simply states that you will speak to PS Hughes on Monday and ask that the matter is reviewed. That is precisely the difficulty. It gives the impression that the matter has not been actively monitored, that no clear timetable has been set, and that the complaint is only now being chased because I have pressed for an update.

That is unacceptable given the seriousness of the issues raised.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a routine complaint about service dissatisfaction. It concerns, among other matters:

a) the accuracy of Gwent Police’s representations to the Information Commissioner’s Office;
b) the failure to correct or substantiate those representations when challenged;
c) the ICO Decision Notice in which Gwent Police’s reliance on section 14 was not upheld;
d) alleged inappropriate pressure by a senior PSD officer to withdraw or limit a complaint;
e) the apparent lack of independence where PSD conduct is itself in issue;
f) the completeness of disclosure and SAR searches;
g) contact with the NPCC concerning me, my requests and/or the PNC “weeding” issue;
h) a serious unresolved public-interest concern about lost/stolen vehicle records and the reliability of PNC/DVLA stolen marker data.

In those circumstances, a response stating that the matter will be raised with PS Hughes on Monday is wholly inadequate.

Please now provide, by return or no later than close of business Monday:

  1. the complaint reference number;
  2. the date the complaint was formally recorded;
  3. the full recorded scope of the complaint;
  4. the name, rank and role of the person presently responsible for progressing it;
  5. confirmation of whether that person sits within the same PSD structure as any officer whose conduct is complained of;
  6. the reason no substantive response was provided to my email of 5 May 2026;
  7. the reason no meaningful progress update has been provided since 15 April 2026;
  8. the reason the complaint has not already been referred for independent handling;
  9. whether referral to an external constabulary has been considered;
  10. whether the Chief Constable has been made aware of the complaint and the independence concerns.

I also ask that my current subject access request be treated as extending to all personal data arising from or connected with this complaint, including but not limited to:

• internal correspondence concerning me and/or my complaint;
• correspondence between Mr Hill, PS Hughes and any supervising officer concerning me or this complaint;
• correspondence involving PSD, the Disclosure Unit, Phoenix Bureau or any senior officer concerning me;
• any material concerning whether the complaint should be recorded, limited, closed, escalated or externally referred;
• any correspondence with the NPCC or other policing body concerning me, my requests, my complaint, PNC Lost/Stolen “weeding” or the ICO Decision Notice;
• any records discussing my publication of material on CarCrime.uk, WhatDoTheyKnow, LinkedIn or elsewhere;
• any correspondence concerning the proposed or actual handling strategy in relation to me.

If Gwent Police does not accept this as clarification or extension of the existing SAR, please treat it as a further subject access request.

I have sought to deal with this matter reasonably. I have given Gwent Police repeated opportunities to engage, explain, correct or audit the position. I have also held back from placing the full lost/stolen vehicle data and related analysis into the public domain so that Gwent Police could respond first.

Considering the continuing absence of any meaningful response, I am now proceeding on the basis that Gwent Police has had a fair opportunity to provide comment, correction or context. Unless a substantive response is now provided urgently, I intend to publish and circulate the relevant material, including the data analysis and the concerns about Gwent Police’s handling of this matter. The relevant statistics can be found here – https://carcrime.uk/2023-to-2025-dvla-police-los-data/ Gwent having the 5th highest difference of 61.5%

That is not my preferred course. My preference remains that Gwent Police engage properly, confirms what has happened, explains what has been done to audit or remedy the position, and ensures that the complaint is handled independently. However, the continuing delay, lack of ownership and absence of meaningful update leave me with little confidence that this matter is receiving the attention it requires.

I am copying this correspondence to the IOPC and the Chief Constable because the issue now concerns not only the original complaint, but the adequacy and independence of Gwent Police’s ongoing complaint handling.

03/06/2026 – to Mr Hill Gwent PSD chase an update

To: enquiries@hmicfrs.gov.uk’ <enquiries@hmicfrs.gov.uk>; ‘enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk’ <enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk>; ‘Commissioner’ <Commissioner@gwent.police.uk>; ‘COEST@gwent.police.uk’ <COEST@gwent.police.uk>
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct, Misrepresentation and Failure to Address PNC “Weeding” Issue
Importance: High

I refer to your email of 28 May 2026, in which you stated that you would speak with PS Hughes on Monday morning, ask that the matter be reviewed, and provide me with suitable timescales.

I have not received any further update.

For clarity, I do not suggest that your email amounted to a promise of a full substantive complaint response on Monday. However, it did clearly indicate that the matter would be raised with PS Hughes and that suitable timescales would then be provided. That has not happened, or at least nothing has been communicated to me. That is unsatisfactory.

This complaint has now been with Gwent Police for a considerable period. The last meaningful update I received was on 15 April 2026, when I was informed that the complaint was sitting with PS Hughes for review. My detailed correspondence of 5 May 2026 remains unanswered in substance, and my subsequent chase of 28 May 2026 has still not resulted in the basic information requested.

The issue is no longer simply the original complaint. It now also concerns the adequacy of Gwent Police’s handling of the complaint, the absence of meaningful progress updates, and the apparent lack of ownership or active monitoring.

Please now provide, by return:

  1. the complaint reference number;
  2. the date on which the complaint was formally recorded;
  3. the current status of the complaint;
  4. the full recorded scope of the complaint;
  5. the name, rank and role of the person presently responsible for progressing it;
  6. confirmation of whether PS Hughes has now reviewed the matter;
  7. the timescale for the next substantive update or response;
  8. the reason no substantive response has been provided to my email of 5 May 2026;
  9. the reason no meaningful progress update has been provided since 15 April 2026;
  10. confirmation of whether the independence concerns I have raised have been considered.

I also ask that this correspondence be added to the complaint file. The continuing failure to provide even basic timescales should itself now be treated as part of my complaint regarding the handling of this matter.

As previously explained, the complaint raises serious issues, including representations made to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the handling of my FOIA and SAR matters, the involvement of PSD personnel, the independence of the complaint process, and the unresolved PNC Lost/Stolen “weeding” issue. It is therefore not acceptable for the matter to drift without clear ownership, timescales or explanation.

I remain willing to engage constructively. However, Gwent Police has now had repeated opportunities to provide a clear update, identify the scope of the complaint, and explain how the matter is being progressed. The continuing absence of that information leaves me with little confidence that the complaint is receiving the attention it requires.

Unless a clear response and timescale is now provided, I will proceed on the basis that Gwent Police is either unable or unwilling to provide appropriate complaint handling updates. In those circumstances, I will ask the IOPC, the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable to consider whether the handling of this matter now supports the concerns I have already raised about independence, candour and procedural fairness.

I will write separately regarding the operational and public-interest concerns arising from the PNC Lost/Stolen “weeding” issue and the discrepancy between Gwent Police’s recorded vehicle theft figures and DVLA Lost/Stolen data. However, I consider it appropriate to give Gwent Police clear notice of the concern now.

The comparative data I have obtained indicates that Gwent Police is among the constabularies with one of the highest discrepancies between police-recorded Lost/Stolen vehicle figures and DVLA Lost/Stolen records. I do not suggest, at this stage, that PNC “weeding” necessarily explains the whole of that discrepancy. There may be other reasons why police and DVLA figures do not align more closely.  However, given the history of this matter, Gwent Police’s previous assurances, the apparent failure to provide any meaningful audit evidence, and the continuing absence of confirmation that the issue has been resolved, the obvious concern is that unchecked or inadequately monitored PNC “weeding” may be playing a substantial part.

If that concern is correct, the consequence is extremely serious; potentially hundreds of vehicles recorded by Gwent Police as stolen may not be recorded as stolen on the PNC and may not have been notified to, or recorded by, the DVLA as Lost/Stolen. That would have obvious implications for victims, insurers, vehicle provenance checks, ANPR recovery opportunities, public theft statistics and the wider reliability of national stolen vehicle data.

This is why I find the continuing absence of proper complaint handling, timescales and escalation so troubling. Gwent Police has been on notice of this issue for a considerable period. If the process is still not being properly monitored, or if weeding alerts are not being actioned due to resourcing or procedural failure, that is not a minor administrative issue. It is a public-interest concern requiring urgent explanation and senior review

I also consider it important to place the history of this matter in context. This is not a new or speculative issue. Following my May 2024 approach, Gwent Police acknowledged that PNC Lost/Stolen “weeding” was occurring in circumstances where, on any sensible view, it should not have been. That was precisely why I continued to press the matter. My concern was not abstract criticism of Gwent Police. It was an attempt to assist your constabulary in addressing a known vulnerability, protecting victims, improving recovery prospects, avoiding inaccurate national data, and reducing avoidable exposure for insurers and vehicle provenance providers.

I have repeatedly tried to assist Gwent Police with this issue. I have explained the process, identified the risk, provided context, highlighted the consequences and given Gwent Police repeated opportunities to audit, correct and explain the position before wider publication.

Regrettably, rather than embracing that assistance or treating the concern as a serious operational warning, I have instead encountered defensiveness, delay, hostility, and conduct that has given the impression that the person raising the issue became the problem, rather than the issue itself. That is a deeply troubling position where the underlying concern may affect victims of vehicle theft, the accuracy of PNC and DVLA records, ANPR recovery opportunities, insurers, provenance checks and public confidence in vehicle crime data.

The comparative figures now make the position still more serious

Furthermore, it reinforces why I consider the continuing lack of ownership, timescales and escalation to be unacceptable. Gwent Police has been on notice of this issue for a considerable period. The appropriate response should have been urgent review, audit, escalation and engagement. Instead, I remain without basic complaint information, without a proper explanation, and without assurance that the underlying operational issue has been resolved.

I ask that this concern is now treated with the seriousness it plainly requires.

08/06/2026 – to Mr Hill Gwent PSD chase a response

To: enquiries@hmicfrs.gov.uk; enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk; ‘Commissioner’ Commissioner@gwent.police.uk; COEST@gwent.police.uk; enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct, Misrepresentation and Failure to Address PNC “Weeding” Issue

Please advise, by return, when I can expect to receive the update and timescales you assured me would be provided.
I remain without any meaningful response to my correspondence of 5 May, 28 May and 3 June 2026.
My concern is now simple: Gwent Police appears to have one of the highest discrepancies between police-recorded Lost/Stolen vehicle data and DVLA Lost/Stolen records. Given the known history of PNC Lost/Stolen “weeding” within Gwent, the obvious concern is that continued or inadequately monitored weeding may have contributed to that discrepancy.
The relevant data is here: https://carcrime.uk/2023-to-2025-dvla-police-los-data/
If that concern is correct, the consequence is serious: potentially hundreds of vehicles recorded by Gwent Police as stolen may not be recorded as stolen on the PNC or at the DVLA.
I am copying this to the IOPC because the continued absence of basic complaint updates, timescales and ownership is now part of my complaint. Furthermore, the continued silence now appears to support, rather than answer, my concerns about complaint handling, independence and candour.

06/07/2026 – to Mr Hill – chase a response

06 July 2026 12:21
Cc: ‘Commissioner’ Commissioner@gwent.police.uk; ‘COEST@gwent.police.uk’ COEST@gwent.police.uk; ‘Nicola.Brain@gwent.police.uk’ Nicola.Brain@gwent.police.uk; ‘Mark.Hobrough@gwent.police.uk’ Mark.Hobrough@gwent.police.uk; ‘Katie.Jones2@gwent.police.uk’ Katie.Jones2@gwent.police.uk
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct, Misrepresentation and Failure to Address PNC “Weeding” Issue

Copy 06/07/2026

16/07/2026 – To Mr Hill of Gwent PSD

Subject: Formal Complaint – Request for Current Position

Dear Mr Hill,

I write further to my previous correspondence regarding my formal complaint.

I would be grateful if you could provide a brief update on the current position, specifically:

  1. the complaint reference
  2. the present status of the complaint;
  3. whether the complaint remains under review;
  4. whether there have been any developments since your last update; and
  5. when I might reasonably expect either a substantive response or a further progress update.

As you will appreciate, this complaint has now been ongoing for a considerable period. I remain keen to engage constructively, but I am concerned by the continuing absence of any meaningful update.

I am copying this correspondence to the IOPC simply to keep them informed, given their earlier involvement in ensuring the complaint was forwarded to Gwent Police.

I look forward to hearing from you.

17/07/2026 from Mr Hill of Gwent PSD – ‘extended period away’

Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct, Misrepresentation and Failure to Address PNC “Weeding” Issue. IOPC ref. – 2026/004791

Good morning Mr Swift, apologies for this late response, but I have been on an extended period away from the office and have just returned to work.

In response to the emails you have sent, I have spoken with Insp Tom Delaney this morning who will undertake a review of the complaints you raise.

I am now on my annual leave period from today and will await the Inspectors response.

Cofion gorau / Kind regards

17/07/2026 to Mr Hill of Gwent police PSD re unacceptable delay

Thank you for your email.

I note your explanation that you have been away from the office for an extended period. However, that does not adequately explain the position and is unsatisfactory.

Three months ago, on 15 April 2026 you wrote:

“I wish to update you, that your complaint is sitting with PS Amy Hughes for review.

I am not in a position to provide any exact timescales, but I will certainly be discussing the matter with my sergeant and progress the matters you have raised.”

Since then, no substantive update has been provided. I emailed.  Nothing from you or any party cc’d.  No one advised of your absence, no one managed my expectation.

I assume I am not the only complainant you are associated with.  Can I safely assume that no other was advised of your absence, that many are in the same predicament as me; the subject of similarly unprofessional conduct form a ‘professional’ standards department whose employees’, when away have unmonitored in boxes, whose complaints stall?

I remain without a complaint reference, confirmation of the complaint scope, confirmation of ownership, confirmation of the review route, or any meaningful timescale.

Your latest email now states that you have spoken with Insp Tom Delaney, who will undertake a review. That appears to be a new position. It does not explain what happened to the review said to be with PS Amy Hughes in April, what action your sergeant took, why no one updated me, or why my later correspondence to wider Gwent Police addresses did not result in meaningful escalation.

This is unacceptable.

If you were absent for an extended period, the question is not simply why you did not respond. The question is why a live complaint of this seriousness was apparently not monitored, supervised or progressed by anyone else. If the matter was with PS Hughes, why did PS Hughes not provide an update?

If you had discussed the matter with a sergeant, why did that not result in action?

If your mailbox was not being monitored, why not?

If it was being monitored, why was no response provided?

There is an obvious irony in a Professional Standards Department handling a serious complaint in a manner that appears neither professional nor adequately supervised. A complainant should not be left without a reference, scope, owner, timescale or update simply because one officer is absent.

If the matter was with PS Amy Hughes in April, then the complaint was not dependent upon you. If your sergeant was aware of the matter, then supervision existed. If wider Gwent Police addresses were copied, then the force was on notice. The absence of any meaningful response therefore points not merely to individual delay, but to a failure of complaint-handling continuity and oversight.

I have also written to, or copied, wider Gwent Police addresses, including:

I therefore do not understand how the matter could remain dormant simply because you were away from the office.

The complaint is serious. It concerns PNC Lost/Stolen vehicle markers, six-week “weeding”, DVLA notification, the completeness of stolen vehicle data, and public-protection consequences if unrecovered stolen vehicles cease to appear as stolen on national systems. It also concerns Gwent’s previous handling of this issue, including the assertion that the problem had been addressed by confirmation at creation, an assertion undermined by subsequent activity.  The complaint extends to your constabulary’s misrepresentation of facts to the ICO, a distortion that labelled me as ‘vexatious’ (rejected by the ICO) and your failure to ratify your accusation; presumably because you could not without implicating yourselves.

If this is how one serious complaint has been handled, it raises an obvious question about complaint-handling resilience within Gwent PSD more generally.

The matter is now more serious, not less. The National Audit Office has recorded that a Home Office official confirmed that the PNC confirmation / weeding process leads to the discrepancy between police and DVLA stolen vehicle databases. That is directly relevant to the concerns I have been raising with Gwent since 2024.

Indeed, as I believe will shortly be reported, Gwent have one of the highest DVLA stolen / police report of theft discrepancies of those in England & Wales.

The handling of my complaint has now itself become part of the complaint. That includes:

  1. the failure to provide a complaint reference;
  2. the failure to confirm the scope of the complaint;
  3. the failure to provide any meaningful timescale;
  4. the failure to explain what PS Amy Hughes did following your email of 15 April 2026;
  5. the failure to explain what supervision was provided by your sergeant;
  6. the failure to explain why no one responded during your absence;
  7. the failure to explain why emails copied to wider Gwent Police addresses did not result in escalation;
  8. the failure to explain why an Inspector is now being asked to review matters only after further delay.

I therefore require the following by return:

  1. The complaint reference number or numbers.
  2. The date on which the complaint was formally recorded.
  3. The precise scope of the complaint as currently recorded.
  4. Confirmation whether the complaint includes the handling failures identified above.
  5. Confirmation whether your own handling of the matter is now included within the complaint.
  6. Confirmation whether PS Amy Hughes undertook any review following your email of 15 April 2026.
  7. If PS Hughes did undertake a review, what stage that review reached and why no update was provided.
  8. If PS Hughes did not undertake a review, why the matter was allowed to remain dormant.
  9. Confirmation of the role now being undertaken by Insp Tom Delaney.
  10. Confirmation whether Insp Delaney is independent of the complaint-handling conduct now complained of.
  11. Confirmation who is responsible for the complaint during your annual leave.
  12. A clear date by which I will receive a substantive response.

Please treat this email as a further complaint-handling allegation.

For completeness, I am preparing a public chronology of this matter setting out the continuity of my concerns from May 2024 to the present. The issue is no longer confined to the underlying PNC / DVLA data problem. It now also concerns Gwent Police’s apparent failure to engage with, progress or supervise a serious complaint raising national data-integrity and public-protection issues.

It appears Gwent’s approach to the issues is to ‘kick the ball into the long grass’; engage delaying tactics.

I am copying this correspondence to the IOPC and to the wider Gwent Police addresses previously copied because the complaint-handling process itself now requires oversight.

17/07/2026 – to the IOPC

I write to draw your attention to the below correspondence with Gwent Police.

My complaint concerns serious issues relating to PNC Lost/Stolen vehicle markers, six-week “weeding”, DVLA notification, data integrity and public protection. It also now concerns the handling of the complaint itself.

Three months ago, on 15 April 2026, Mr James Hill of Gwent Police advised me that my complaint was with PS Amy Hughes for review and that he would discuss the matter with his sergeant. No substantive update followed.

Following repeated chasers, Mr Hill has now replied to say that he has been away from the office, has spoken to Insp Tom Delaney, and that Insp Delaney will undertake a review.

No complaint reference, scope, timescale, explanation of delay, or explanation of PS Hughes’ earlier role has been provided.

I am concerned that the complaint has not been properly progressed, supervised or monitored, and that my later correspondence, copied to wider Gwent Police addresses, has not resulted in meaningful action.

The explanation provided raises a wider complaint-handling concern. If Mr Hill was absent for an extended period, it is unclear why a live complaint of this seriousness was not monitored, supervised or progressed by another officer. It is also unclear why the matter apparently did not progress despite having been described as sitting with PS Amy Hughes for review in April.

I am concerned that this reflects a failure of complaint-handling continuity within Gwent Police Professional Standards Department, rather than a simple delay caused by one officer’s absence.

I would be grateful if this correspondence could be noted against the existing IOPC / Gwent matter and considered as part of any oversight of the way Gwent Police is handling this complaint.

I am also considering whether to provide this chronology to HMICFRS as inspection intelligence, because the matter now appears to raise issues beyond an individual complaint: crime-data integrity, stolen vehicle recording, PNC / DVLA reconciliation, and the resilience of complaint-handling arrangements.

20/07/2026 from Gwent COEST

COEST@gwent.police.uk
Sent: 20 July 2026 10:47
Subject: Re: Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct, Misrepresentation and Failure to Address PNC “Weeding” Issue. IOPC ref. – 2026/004791

Many thanks for your email which has been received and acknowledged by the Chief Officer Team.

I have forwarded your email onto out Professional Standards Department.

Many thanks,

Chief Officers’ Executive Support Team (COEST)
01633 642263

20/07/2026 from Gwent PSD – offer to review


Subject: Outstanding complaint

Thank you for your continued correspondence and for the additional information you have provided.

I believe it is important at the outset to explain my involvement in this matter. I am the newly appointed Inspector within Professional Standards and I have not previously been involved in the handling, assessment, decision-making or review of your complaint. I have had no involvement in any earlier correspondence, recording decisions, complaint outcomes or responses that have been issued to you to date.

Accordingly, I will be approaching the matter with a fresh perspective and undertaking my own review of the material available. Given the concerns you have repeatedly raised regarding independence and previous complaint handling, I would be grateful if you could confirm whether you are content for me to undertake this review. My intention is to ensure that the issues raised are properly understood, appropriately categorised and reviewed on their merits.
Having reviewed the material currently available, including your various submissions, supporting documentation and subsequent correspondence, I consider it helpful to clarify my understanding of the matters raised and the areas that I will initially be reviewing.

The volume and breadth of the correspondence mean that a number of distinct issues have become intertwined over time. In order to ensure that the matters are properly assessed, I intend to distinguish between allegations which fall within the police complaints framework and wider force governance, policy or information management concerns.
At present, my understanding is that your complaint includes the following principal allegations:

• Your allegation that comments made during complaint discussions with Inspector Jenkins amounted to inappropriate pressure or inducement to accept an apology or discontinue aspects of your complaint.
• Your allegation that concerns raised about complaint handlers and complaint-handling decisions were not separately considered or appropriately addressed.
• Your allegation that inaccurate representations were made regarding the chronology of the PNC Lost/Stolen “weeding” issue and the extent of prior internal awareness of that issue.
• Your allegation that inaccurate or misleading information was provided to the Information Commissioner’s Office during consideration of Gwent Police’s FOIA position.
• Your concerns regarding the independence of complaint handling where concerns have been raised about PSD personnel or decisions.
• Your concerns regarding the handling and progression of the complaint itself, including ownership, communication, updates and timescales.

These are the matters which may appear capable of falling within the police complaints process and which I may consider as part of my review.

In addition, you have raised broader concerns relating to PNC Lost/Stolen marker management, the so-called “weeding” process, DVLA and police-recorded stolen vehicle discrepancies, governance arrangements, audit processes, FOIA handling, SAR responses and wider information-management issues.

Whilst these matters provide important context and form part of the background to your complaint, they may not all constitute conduct allegations against individual police officers or members of police staff. Some aspects may therefore require consideration through governance, operational, information-management or other organisational processes rather than through the complaints framework alone.

I am aware that you have repeatedly requested clarification regarding complaint ownership, recorded scope, timescales and progression. I acknowledge that this has been a recurring theme throughout your correspondence and forms part of the concerns you have raised about the handling of the matter.

My immediate priority is therefore to:

  1. Confirm the full scope of the matters currently under consideration.
  2. Identify which issues are being reviewed as complaint allegations and which fall outside the complaints process.
  3. Establish ownership of each strand of the matter.
  4. Review the handling of the complaint to date, including the concerns you have raised regarding communication and progression.
  5. Consider the representations made regarding independence and whether any further action is required in that regard.

I should emphasise that no conclusions have been reached at this stage regarding the merits of any allegation. The purpose of the current review is to ensure that the issues raised have been correctly identified, appropriately categorised and considered through the correct process.

In the meantime, I would be grateful if you could confirm whether you are content for me to continue as the reviewing Inspector, given my lack of previous involvement in the matter. If there are any specific concerns you wish me to take into account at the outset of the review, please feel free to highlight those.

I trust this clarifies my current understanding of the complaint and the areas that I will be reviewing.

Cofion gorau | Kind regards

Inspector Public Complaints & Dissatisfaction
Heddlu Gwent Police

20/07/2026 to Gwent PSD re offer to review

Subject: RE: Outstanding complaint

Thank you for your email and for taking the time to review the material before writing to me.

I welcome your involvement in this matter and confirm that I am content for you to undertake the review.

I also welcome your explanation that you have had no previous involvement in the handling of my complaint. Given the concerns I have raised regarding complaint handling and independence, I consider that a positive and constructive starting point.

Having read your email carefully, I am encouraged by your intention to identify the issues, distinguish between the various strands of the matter and ensure they are considered on their merits. That is all I have sought since first approaching Gwent Police regarding the underlying issue in 2024.

I agree with your observation that several matters have become intertwined over time. Indeed, that has been one of my frustrations. What began as a straightforward attempt to bring an apparent operational weakness to Gwent Police’s attention has, regrettably, developed into a much wider matter concerning complaint handling, disclosure, representations made during FOIA proceedings, and confidence in the way those concerns have subsequently been addressed.

I also accept that not every issue I have raised necessarily falls to be determined through the police complaints process. Matters concerning governance, operational policy or information management may properly require consideration through other mechanisms. However, I would respectfully suggest that the underlying PNC Lost/Stolen “weeding” issue should not be viewed merely as background. It is the foundation upon which everything else rests.

My original approach to Gwent Police was made in good faith and with the intention of assisting your constabulary, a victim of crime and their insurer. I acted to prevent complaint(s).

My concern was that vehicles reported stolen were being removed from the PNC before confirmation, resulting in their failing to reach the DVLA Lost/Stolen register and creating wider implications for victims, vehicle recovery, provenance checks, insurers and the integrity of national stolen vehicle data. This has implications for constabulary recording, crime prevention, detection, the apprehension of and prosecution of offenders.

Had that issue simply been acknowledged, examined and, where appropriate, addressed at the outset, I do not believe the subsequent complaint-handling issues would have arisen.

The repeated correspondence that followed did not arise because I wished to pursue complaints for their own sake. It arose because I remained concerned that the underlying operational issue had not been properly resolved and because further concerns emerged regarding the way my attempts to assist were themselves being handled. That concern remains current.

Indeed, since submitting my complaint I believe I have identified further examples, the latest dating from 1 June 2026, which appears consistent with the concerns originally raised regarding PNC Lost/Stolen marker management – in may 2024!

I mention this not to expand the scope of the complaint unnecessarily, but because it reinforces why I continued to correspond with Gwent Police and why I remain concerned that the underlying issue may not yet have been fully resolved. I will, of course, provide full details if they would assist your review.

For my part, I hope the history of this matter will be viewed through that context. My objective has consistently been to understand, and where possible assist in resolving, what I believed to be a matter of public interest. It has never been my intention simply to criticise Gwent Police.

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify these points at the outset and look forward to assisting your review in whatever way may be helpful.

Thank you again for your email and for the careful and measured approach you have outlined.