24/11/2025 Request
FoIA Request for PNC LoS Marker Information
Dear Gwent Police,
I ask to be provided
- The Daily Activity Files (automatically generated by PNC) for Lost/Stolen reports since 01/09/2025 to the present date.
I am seeking the notifications of ‘unconfirmed markers’ insofar as they apply to Vehicle Registration Marks (VRMs).
I wish to be able to understand which records relate to a notification of a potential deletion, the periods/intervals at which notifications are received and to receive copies of the records which advise of a pending deletion at 6 weeks. - Additionally, with regard to the above records, where they indicate a deletion or pending deletion due to 6-week weeding, please advise the date the record(s) were confirmed.
- Regarding the creation of a PNC LoS record by an FCR operator, what checks are in place to ensure these are CONIRMED at creation and what log is maintained to identify the FCR operator creating the record and confirming (or not) the record i.e. what annotations/event log is held – an anonymised example would be helpful.
- Lastly, where a VRM is not confirmed immediately, please advise the enquiries undertaken of a LoS VRM for the period between the date of theft allegation to the date of confirmation on PNC.
I am seeking no personal information
17/12/2025 Gwent Response
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST 2025/29098
Dear requester,
Thank you for your recent request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at, Section 1(1) (a), is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at, Section1 (1) (b), is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.
RESPONSE
The exemption applicable to the information you have requested for this question can
be found at Section 31(1)(a)(b)-‘Law Enforcement’, of the Freedom of information
Act 2000, and this refusal notice is issued under Section 17(5).
S31 Law Enforcement is a qualified, and prejudice-based exemption. Therefore, the
harm should be articulated, and arguments given as to the public interest test.
Harm
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime
and protecting the communities we serve. Modern-day policing is intelligence led and
in this particular subject area the intelligence changes on a day-by-day basis.
Disclosure of the requested information would reveal current intelligence which has
the potential to seriously undermine effective law enforcement. This information is
provided to Police Forces only and is for a Policing purpose only. Disclosure of Police
tactics and capabilities would assist offenders when planning criminal activity.
Disclosure of this information which also includes VRMs (Vehicle Registration Marks)
could be of intelligence value to a person or persons with criminal or malicious intent.
Full disclosure could provide and enable targeted malicious actions, be that some form
of attack on an operational unit or avoiding that unit for example where strengths and
weakness may be perceived (whether incorrectly or not).
In practice, all of this information is not realistically accessible to a member of the
public and is therefore not in the public domain. Also included in the document is third
party data, e.g. names of subjects of intelligence and investigations and/or addresses
of victims of crime.
Providing the requested information provides opportunities for criminality to benefit, or
for risks to be extended to members of the public.
Additionally, law enforcement tactics and operational capability would be
compromised with the disclosure of the details requested, as those who wish to
commit criminal acts will be more aware of information that assist with preventing and
detecting crime.
Such a disclosure would allow those with criminal intent the ability to build up a mosaic
picture of force capabilities and resources and use this information to undermine law
enforcement. This places the community at increased unnecessary risk of harm and
impacts on police resources if additional resources and tactics need to be put in place
to counter any harm caused by an adverse FOIA disclosure.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring disclosure – s31 – There is a legitimate public interest in the
public being satisfied that the police force has up to date records regarding stolen
vehicles.
Factors favouring non-disclosure – s31 – The Police Service has a duty to deliver
effective law enforcement ensuring that the prevention and detection of crime,
apprehension or prosecution of offenders and administration of justice is carried out
appropriately.
Disclosing information that would allow the identifications, may reveal what resources
are available and this information could enable police strength to be determined and
circumvented by those intent on committing crime. The release of this information
could therefore provide a tactical advantage to offenders which would negatively
impact on public safety and undermine the policing purpose.
Disclosing the details and record information regarding Police intelligence and VRMs
would provide sufficient information to those involved in criminal activity. This could
result in them taking steps to evade detection and to destroy evidence if they believe
that their movements are being monitored.
Balance Test
It is not in the public interest for law enforcement tactics and operational capability to
be compromised with the disclosure of Police intelligence and VRMs of stolen
vehicles, as those who wish to commit criminal acts will be more aware of data and
records in operation to assist with preventing and detecting crime.
Such a disclosure that would allow those with criminal intent the ability to build up a
mosaic picture of force capabilities which could be used to undermine law
enforcement. This would not be in the public interest.
Disclosure is also not in the public interest as it places the community at increased
unnecessary risk of harm and impacts on police resources. This is especially the case
if additional tactics/resources need to be put in place to counter harm caused by an
adverse FOIA request regarding Police intelligence and VRMs.
Section 40(2) Personal Information
The exemption applicable to the information you have requested for this question can
be found at Section 40(2) Personal Information, of the Act and this refusal notice is
issued under Section 17.
Gwent Police is withholding the information you have requested on the basis that the
exemption contained in s 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act applies in that the
information you have requested is personal data of third parties and the disclosure of
the data would breach one of the principles contained in the Data Protection Act. The
relevant principle is the first principle which states that:
Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and in particular shall not be
processed unless –
(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met and
(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3
is met
It is only necessary to consider (a) in respect of the information requested. The
relevant condition in Schedule 2 is condition 6 which states that:
“The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the
data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except
where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to
the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject”
Please note, every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate
and complete.
Freedom of Information Act is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. Any
information disclosed under the Act is thereafter deemed to be in the public domain,
and therefore freely available to the public and will be published on the Gwent Police
website.
If, upon receiving a response to a freedom of information request, you are unhappy
with the outcome, you may request an internal review. This should be made within
40 working days of the initial response.
Please direct any internal review requests to FOI@gwent.police.uk
You have the right to request an appeal from the Information Commissioners Office
about your Freedom of Information request, if you are dissatisfied with your internal
review response.
ICO Contact Details:
The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113
Web: www.ico.org.uk
Thank you for your interest in Gwent Police
23/12/2025 to Gwent Police – Request Internal Review
Request for Internal Review – FOIA 2025/29098
I write to request an internal review of Gwent Police’s refusal of my Freedom of Information Act request (reference 2025/29098) concerning PNC Daily Activity Files and notifications relating to unconfirmed Lost or Stolen (LoS) vehicle markers.
1. Failure to Properly Engage Section 31 FOIA
Gwent Police relies upon section 31(1)(a)(b) (Law Enforcement) to refuse disclosure. While this is a qualified exemption, the refusal fails to demonstrate specific, real and significant prejudice as required by settled ICO and Tribunal authority.
The response relies on generic and speculative assertions about policing tactics, intelligence and offender awareness. No explanation is given as to how disclosure of historical administrative alerts regarding unconfirmed PNC LoS records would realistically prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.
The information sought concerns:
• Automated PNC notifications of pending deletion due to non-confirmation
• Confirmation timestamps
• Process controls applied by FCR operators
• Administrative actions taken after a theft allegation has already been recorded
This is process and governance information, not operational intelligence. It does not disclose live investigations, surveillance techniques, covert capabilities, or tactical deployment.
The ICO has consistently held that “prejudice must be more than trivial or hypothetical” and that authorities must demonstrate a causal link between disclosure and the alleged harm. That threshold has not been met here.
2. Prior Disclosure and Inconsistent Application of Exemptions
In 2024, Gwent Police disclosed materially similar information in tabular form relating to unconfirmed LoS markers without citing section 31 or section 40, and without any identifiable harm arising from that disclosure. That disclosure is publicly available:
https://carcrime.uk/wp-content/uploads/2…
The refusal notice does not explain:
• What has changed since that disclosure
• What specific harm arose from it
• Why information previously deemed suitable for release is now said to endanger law enforcement
The ICO places significant weight on consistency and precedent. Where information has previously been disclosed, public authorities are expected to clearly justify any departure from earlier decisions. No such justification is provided.
For the sake of clarity, the disclosure I am seeking is in the format previously supplied, though i ask that the columns/entries be clearly explained.
3. Misapplication of the “Mosaic Effect” Argument
The refusal repeatedly invokes the “mosaic” argument, suggesting disclosure could be combined with other information to infer police capabilities.
This argument is:
• Asserted in the abstract
• Unsupported by evidence
• Not tailored to the specific information requested
The ICO has repeatedly cautioned against over-reliance on the mosaic theory where it is used to defeat transparency by default, particularly where the information concerns administrative compliance rather than operational deployment.
No explanation is provided as to how anonymised, redacted, or aggregated data concerning confirmation delays and automated deletion alerts would meaningfully enable offenders to circumvent policing.
4. Section 40 Personal Data – Failure to Consider Redaction
Section 40(2) is cited despite the fact that:
• I have not requested personal data
• VRMs are not personal data per se
• The previous disclosure was made using redaction without difficulty
The ICO’s guidance is clear that section 40 does not justify withholding entire datasets where redaction or anonymisation would address privacy concerns.
The refusal does not demonstrate that:
• Redaction was considered
• Partial disclosure was assessed
• Aggregated or example records were explored
This represents a failure to comply with section 1(1)(b) FOIA and the duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16.
What personal data is it believed I am requesting?
5. Public Interest Test – Inadequate and Unbalanced
While the response acknowledges a public interest in accurate stolen-vehicle records, this is not meaningfully weighed.
There is a strong and compelling public interest in:
• Ensuring stolen vehicle records are not prematurely deleted
• Understanding whether previously identified “weeding” failures persist
• Accountability in the operation of the PNC
• Confidence in police handling of vehicle crime reports
• Preventing harm to innocent purchasers and insurers arising from erroneous record deletion
The suggestion that disclosure would increase crime or endanger the public is unsupported and disproportionate when weighed against the systemic risks posed by undisclosed failures in national vehicle crime recording.
6. Context of Previous ICO Findings on Vexatiousness
I also note that Gwent Police previously characterised related requests as vexatious, a position rejected by the ICO.
While vexatiousness is not cited in this refusal, the pattern of resistance to disclosure on this subject is relevant context when assessing whether exemptions are being applied defensively rather than lawfully.
Furthermore, the vexatious argument was supported by exaggeration, misrepresentation, identified by the ICO with whom Gwent police failed to engage.
7. Remedy Sought
I request that the internal review:
• Reconsiders the engagement and application of section 31
• Properly reassesses section 40 with a view to redaction or anonymisation
• Takes into account prior disclosure and absence of harm
• Considers partial or staged disclosure where appropriate
• Provides a reasoned, evidence-based public interest assessment
Should the refusal be upheld, I request a clear and specific explanation addressing each of the points above, suitable for onward consideration by the Information Commissioner.
I look forward to receiving the outcome of the internal review.