Skip to content

Car Crime U.K.

who knows, who cares?

Menu
  • Events Timeline
  • Stolen Vehicle Info’
    • ‘Form A Squad’ – Ineffective Action
      • The Vehicle Crime Task Force (VCT) – 2019
      • 2022 to 2023 National Vehicle Crime Working Group
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found in the U.K.
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found Abroad
    • OPERATION IGNEOUS – reducing reported car theft by 30%
    • Title Law
  • Collision & Crime Reports
    • Police Theft Reports
    • Police Collision Reports
    • Police Disclosure Delays
  • Resources
    • Your Vehicle Theft Insurance Claim
    • Police Contact Emails
  • News
  • Links
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
  • Contact
Menu

190722 Mercedes keyless car crime

22/07/2019 FoIA request via WhatDoTheyKnow:

I would be grateful if you could find the time to provide me with the following information.

How many reported car thefts of Mercedes cars have there been in the MPS area since 2016.
how many of these thefts have been achieved by the thieves using ‘keyless’ technology. whereby they have entered and removed the car, not using the cars keys.
Response:
DECISION

This letter is to inform you that it will not be possible to respond to your request within the cost threshold. This response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 12 – Where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit

Having made initial enquiries in order to determine whether the information you have requested could be located, retrieved and extracted within the appropriate limit of 18 hours stipulated by the Fees Regulations, it became clear that this would not be possible for Question 2. The reason for this is because there is currently no code or flag on the crime recording system for ‘keyless’ or unforced entry. This information would be recorded within the investigation details of the crime report, which are not electronically searchable. Unfortunately these investigation details contain full pages of text, extend over numerous pages, and are not limited in size, depending upon the nature of the investigation and whether an offender/alleged offender was identified.

Therefore, in order for the MPS to determine whether entry into a Mercedes car was ‘keyless’, all of the relevant robbery, burglary and theft and handling offence reports for Mercedes cars over the specified time period would need to be manually reviewed. To give you an idea of the amount of work required to comply with your request, the MPS recorded 11,687 relevant offences within the specified timeframe. If it only took a very conservative estimate of 1 minute to read and extract the relevant information from each of these records, it would take 194 hours to comply with your request.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) advises on using the Fees Regulations ‘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 ICO further 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.’

We 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.

Advice and assistance

The ICO have advised that if one aspect of a request exceeds the cost threshold, the whole request should be refused on cost grounds and the applicant given the opportunity to specify which parts of the request are the most important to them.

I would therefore like to provide you with advice as to how you may narrow your request so that it does not exceed the appropriate limit. As explained, it is Question 2 of your request which would exceed the cost limit. Therefore, if Question 2 of your request was removed, this would allow us to work on Question 1. In this instance I have already provided information for Question 1 as part of the costs estimation, however we could break this data down by month, year and vehicle type.

Alternatively, it may help to reduce the geographical area and request data for a specific borough or boroughs that you may be interested in for Question 2, and/or significantly reduce the timeframe to one month or less.

Please note that the MPS is the largest police service and records the most crimes. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 only provides for a free of cost of 18 hours, which equates to the manual reading of approximately 216 reports. This effectively reduces the ability of the MPS to fulfil many FOIA requests where the information requested is not held in an electronically searchable field, simply because the MPS records more than 216 of most crime types in any one year.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact me via email at foi@met.police.uk, quoting the reference number above.

Recent Posts:

  • Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings
  • Keyless is Meaningless
  • Accusations of Criminality
  • When ‘Sale or Return’ Goes Wrong
  • Thefts Down – Except for Newer Cars!
  • Increase Pre-Crush Retention Period to 28 days?
  • Reducing Vehicle Theft by up to 30%
  • ‘The Others’ … are you among them?
  • Vehicle Abandonments Raise Questions Over Theft Claims
  • The State of Vehicle Taking in the UK: A Crisis of Enforcement, Not Engineering
  • Keystone Krooks – but £1.4 million stolen!
  • 2024 Vehicle Theft – how well (or otherwise) did your constabulary perform?
  • Vehicle Crime. Is Police Language Bluring Facts?
  • Superficial Approach to Vehicle Taking Overlooked Organised Crime
  • Keyless Vehicle Taking – Really?
  • Accuracy & Consistency Required
  • Do we need new legislation?
  • A System Built on Blind Faith? The Flaws in Police Information Dissemination
  • Which? … What?
  • The Rise & Fall of Operation Igneous
  • Vehicle Taking – Quantity not Quality
  • Vehicle Theft: 30 years of Complacency
  • The Devalued Crime Report
  • Vehicle Theft Surge Demands Police Action on Crime Report Disclosures
  • FoIA – Staffordshire Police are not the worst offenders
  • Vehicle Repatriation
  • Crime Number Devaluation
  • Manufacturers Cause Vehicle Thefts …
  • PNC LoS Report Weeding
  • Staff-less-shire Police Report Disclosures
  • W. Mercia Police – RTC Report Disclosures
  • Delaying Finalisation of Insurance Claims (for some)
  • Policing (or not?) Vehicle Theft
  • Fraud Not Theft … face the facts!
  • Cloned Plates: Register of Keepers – Lacking Integrity?
  • Police Theft Report Disclosure
  • Headlamp Dazzle & Eye-Snatching
  • Scrap ‘six-week weeding’ of stolen vehicle VRMs
  • Police Vehicle Theft Reports – A Lack Of Understanding And Standardisation

Legal Disclaimer
The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the content, laws and regulations change frequently, and the application of legal principles varies based on specific circumstances.

No Legal Advice
Nothing on this website constitutes legal, financial, or professional advice. You should not rely on the information provided here as a substitute for seeking qualified legal counsel. If you require legal advice or guidance, we strongly recommend consulting a licensed solicitor or legal professional.

No Liability
We make every effort to keep the information up to date and accurate, but we do not guarantee the completeness, correctness, or applicability of any content. We accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or reliance placed on the information contained within this site.

External Links & Third-Party Content
Any external links or references provided are for convenience only and do not constitute endorsement. We are not responsible for the accuracy, legality, or content of any external sites or third-party materials linked from this website.

User Responsibility
It is the responsibility of all users to verify the accuracy and relevance of any information before relying upon it. If you have a legal issue, you should seek advice from a qualified professional relevant to your situation.

By using this website, you acknowledge and agree to this disclaimer. If you do not agree, you should discontinue use of the site immediately.

© 2025 Car Crime U.K. | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme