Information Rights Unit
PO Box 313
Sidcup
DA15 0HH Email: foi@met.police.uk
Our ref: 01/FOI/24/036286 Date: 20/03/2024
Dear [redacted]
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/24/036286
I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/0/2024. I note you seek access to the following information:
YOUR REQUEST
Keyless or ‘relay’ thefts remain a pressing issue which is affecting motorist and insurers across Britain. However, the scale of the problem remains obscured due to a lack of data.
1. Please disclose how many car thefts occurred in Greater London using keyless technology i.e. ‘relay theft’.
Please provide data from the past five years (January 2019-2024)
2. How many people have been arrested or charged on suspicion of carrying out keyless car thefts in the same period (2019-2024).
Please accept this letter as an acknowledgement of receipt of your request, which has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted at the Met Strategy and Performance Headquarters.
DECISION
This email is to inform you that question 1 of your request cannot be answered within the research / cost threshold of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as a result, the MPS is unable to respond to your request in its entirety. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, when one part of a request is refused because the cost of completing that part of the request would exceed the appropriate limit, it results in the refusal of the request in its entirety. This approach is in line with Freedom of Information Decision Notice – Reference: FS50194062.
Exemption applied to question 1 above requesting information:
Section 12(1) – The cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit
Please see the legal annex for further information on the exemptions applied in respect of your request.
REASONS FOR DECISION
I have written to the Met HQ Strategy and Performance headquarters and they have informed me as follows:
Unfortunately, the information you have requested is not retrievable from MPS central searchable databases within cost. As the MPS does not hold the information you require centrally in a format that can be extracted to provide the information you have requested.
The MPS Crime Report Information System (CRIS) records offences reported within the MPS area. There is no flag / code or any other mechanism upon the CRIS from which management information can be produced, that would highlight the number of reported Theft or Taking of vehicle crimes related to keyless technology, as such searches are inaccurate.
To establish the number of reported crimes which mentioned keyless technology i.e. ‘relay theft’ in a crime report, each crime report upon the CRIS would have to be reviewed, This would mean reading through more than 150,000 crime reports, between the dates of 1st January 2019 to 31st January 2024* (the date period requested) to identify whether they are relevant to your request and then to record the information requested.
- note – 150.000 in 5 years equates to 30,000/annum
Whilst it is not possible to provide a precise estimate as to the time required to establish the information you seek. It is clear, that reviewing many thousands of records, would take a single member of staff over the 18 hour research limit of the Act.
I therefore estimate that the cost of complying with this request would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit has been specified in regulations and for agencies outside central Government; this is set at £450.00. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours [at a rate of £25 per hour] in determining whether the MPS holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.
Please also note that the Information Commissioner’s guidance states that ‘Section 12 makes it clear that a public authority does not have to make a precise calculation of the costs of complying with a request. Only an estimate is required … what amounts to a reasonable estimate can only be considered on a case by case basis.’
The Information Commissioner also advises ‘where a reasonable estimate has been made that the appropriate limit would be exceeded, there is no requirement for a public authority to undertake work up to the limit.
DUTY TO ADVISE AND ASSIST
Under Section 16 of the Act, there is a duty to advise and assist those making requests for information. In accordance with this duty, I have considered ways in which to refine / amend question 1 of your request. Unfortunately, owing to the amount of research required to answer this part of your request, I am unable to propose a meaningful way in which to refine your request.
Please be advise. If you resubmit question 2 of your request above, under a new FOIA request, it is likely also, to attract a Section 12(1) exemption under the Act.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please email or contact me at the address at the top of this email, quoting the reference number above.
This notice concludes your request for information. I would like to thank you for your interest in the MPS.
Yours sincerely
Ian Burgess
Data Rights Manager
LEGAL ANNEX
Section 17(5) of the Act provides:
(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that fact.
Section 12(1) of the Act provides:
The cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit
(1) Section 1 does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.
Section 16 of the Act provides:
(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.
(2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section 45 is to be taken to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to that case.
