Request for Authoritative Determination
09/01/2026 to public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk & crimeandpolicestats@homeoffice.gov.uk
I enclose an analytical paper examining the apparent discrepancy between police-recorded vehicle theft figures and DVLA stolen-vehicle notifications, and the role that automated deletion (“weeding”) of unconfirmed PNC Lost/Stolen markers may play in that discrepancy.
The paper does not assert causation as a matter of fact. It demonstrates, however, that the scale of the anomaly is such that it requires authoritative determination by a competent national authority, most appropriately the Home Office.
If automated deletion is a material driver, the implications extend to the integrity of published vehicle theft statistics, victim protection, and downstream reliance on DVLA data by insurers, finance providers, and the public.
I would welcome confirmation as to whether the Home Office intends to assess this issue, and if so, how such determination might be progressed with NPCC and DVLA involvement
02/02/2026 to: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk; crimeandpolicestats@homeoffice.gov.uk
Subject: Subject: Follow-up: assessment of automated deletion (“weeding”) of stolen-vehicle records
I am writing to follow up on my email of 9 January 2026, in which I provided an analytical paper titled “The Extent of Weeding” for the Home Office’s consideration.
The paper examines the apparent discrepancy between police-recorded vehicle theft figures and DVLA stolen-vehicle notifications and identifies the automated deletion (“weeding”) of unconfirmed PNC Lost/Stolen markers as a plausible systemic mechanism requiring authoritative determination.
I appreciate that the issues raised cut across policing operations, data governance, and statistical integrity, and may therefore require internal consideration or referral.
I would be grateful if you could advise:
• whether the paper has been reviewed and by which policy or analytical area;
• whether the Home Office considers the issue to fall within its remit for assessment or determination; and
• if so, what next steps (if any) are envisaged, including engagement with NPCC and/or DVLA.
This is not a request for a substantive conclusion at this stage, but simply confirmation of how the issue is being handled and whether further information would be of assistance.
I am conscious that the analysis raises matters of public interest concerning the reliability of published vehicle-theft data and downstream reliance on that data, and I am keen to ensure the Home Office has a fair opportunity to engage before the material is referenced more widely.
17/02/2026 from Crime and Police Stats CrimeandPoliceStats@homeoffice.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Subject: Follow-up: assessment of automated deletion (“weeding”) of stolen-vehicle records
Thank you for your email and apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Your request has been referred to colleagues who are best placed to consider the questions you have raised. That team will follow up with you as soon as they are able.
Home Office, Crime Analysis Unit
17/02/2026 to Crime and Police Stats CrimeandPoliceStats@homeoffice.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Subject: Follow-up: assessment of automated deletion (“weeding”) of stolen-vehicle records
Thank you – could you provide an approximate timeframe so I may diarise accordingly.
05/03/3036 from Crime and Police Stats CrimeandPoliceStats@homeoffice.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Subject: Follow-up: assessment of automated deletion (“weeding”) of stolen-vehicle records
Given the nature of the enquiry, it’s difficult to estimate a timeframe. But I confirm that the relevant team in the Home Office are looking into the matter with the NPCC and they will get back to you as soon as they are able to.