19/03/2026 – to HMICFRS contacthmicfrs@hmicfrs.gov.uk
Dear HMICFRS,
I am writing to raise a systemic concern rather than to ask HMICFRS to determine an individual complaint.
The concern is this: where a vehicle theft presents an identifiable evidential lead held by a private entity, but police resource constraints or complaint-handling failures mean that the lead is not pursued, victims and insurers can be left in procedural limbo.
A linked concern is complaint handling. In this case, despite acceptance that there were failings and despite fresh matters arising, the force appears not to have clearly recorded a further complaint or issued a formal refusal-to-record decision with review rights.
I raise this because the issue may extend beyond a single case and may indicate wider weaknesses in both specialist vehicle theft investigation and complaint handling.
20/03/2026 from HMICFRS
Thank you for your email.
HMICFRS inspects and reports on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of police forces. Responsibility for investigating complaints rests with the force’s Professional Standards Department and your complaint should be directed to them in the first instance. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your complaint, in some circumstances you may have a right of review. The force you make a complaint to, should send you a letter with the outcome. This letter should also inform you whether you have a right of review, and if you do, which organisation would be responsible for conducting it.
Reviews are carried out either by the local police and crime commissioner (PCC) or by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). You should contact the relevant PCC or the IOPC.
I hope this information has been helpful.
Kind regards,
HMICFRS Contact Mailbox Team
20/03/2026 to HMICFRS
Dear HMICFRS Contact Mailbox Team,
Whilst I thank you for a response, with respect, it does not engage with the substance of my email.
I made it clear that I was not seeking assistance with an individual complaint, nor asking HMICFRS to determine or review it. Your reply simply redirects me back to the Professional Standards Department, the PCC, and the IOPC — all of whom are already engaged in a specific issue.
That response overlooks the point I was making. The issue I raised is a systemic concern, namely:
• where a clear evidential lead exists in a vehicle theft (in this case, manufacturer-held key issuance data),
• but is not pursued due to resource constraints or capability gaps, and
• where the complaint system does not ensure that such failings are properly recorded, progressed, or learned from,
the result is that both investigation and accountability can stall.
That is not a complaint-handling query.
It is a question of police effectiveness, efficiency, supervision, and learning — which falls squarely within HMICFRS’s inspection remit.
In particular, I would ask you to consider whether this issue engages:
• inspection of how effectively forces investigate acquisitive crime, including vehicle theft;
• whether forces are equipped to pursue evidential leads held by third parties;
• whether supervision and continuity of investigation are adequate;
• whether complaint handling processes are operating in a way that ensures organisational learning; and
• whether current arrangements risk leaving identifiable evidential opportunities unexplored.
This is not an isolated or theoretical concern.
If manufacturers hold critical data, but will only disclose to police, and police engagement is inconsistent or incomplete, then a structural gap arises in the investigation of vehicle crime.
That is a matter of public confidence, crime prevention, and policing effectiveness.
I would therefore be grateful if you could clarify:
- whether HMICFRS considers this type of issue to fall within its inspection remit;
- whether concerns of this nature can be recorded and fed into inspection programmes or thematic reviews; and
- if not, which body you consider is responsible for identifying and addressing systemic weaknesses of this kind.
If the position is that HMICFRS will not engage with such matters, I would be grateful if that could be stated clearly so that I may consider whether to raise the issue through parliamentary channels.
For completeness, my intention in raising this is not adversarial. It is to highlight a practical issue which may affect multiple cases and which appears, at present, to fall between institutional responsibilities.
I would welcome a considered response.