Some months ago (in 2024), comment was made on LinkedIn:
‘Vehicle rental companies often experience problems in persuading the police to accept complaints of crime involving the theft of hire and lease vehicles.‘
You can almost hear the officer, to whom such an allegation is reported, asking questions, to which they know the answer, have prepared their stance …
“so, you met with the hirer, saw their identity paperwork, driver licence, took a payment from them and handed over a key and car … and they have not returned it …. YET?’.
Just how long does someone need to retain a vehicle, beyond the agreed hire period, for the ‘taking’ to be considered more than a ‘civil dispute’ … a theft? What action does the Rental Company need to undertake before they will be considered a victim of crime?
There was an agreement, established rules to assist all, but these have long perished (but can be read here).
The circumstances are not that different to the situation in which Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) members find themselves – tricked into handing over a vehicle with which their customer disappears.
A reply to the above LinkedIn comments reads:
- Cars & Keys – so it is not all about ‘security bypass’ and manufacturers? As for the police … sounds like fraud and therefore risks being filed under ‘too complicated’ if not ‘on division’ i.e. tossed into the bin. But wait … the police do not have to refer to ‘civil remedy’ to take a step back ‘ActionFraud’ to the rescue … hmmmm!
- Is the BVRLA’s ‘Reporting acceptance & criteria’ still good.
NaVCIS commented:
NaVCIS encounter a similar issue with the theft of finance cars – the thief has the keys having acquired the car on finance by fraud or will default on payments and refuse to surrender the car. The offenders are exploiting the loop holes, same as the offenders aquiring hire cars, who are also in possession of the keys. Transnational crime is the same outcome that we are tackling with European police and border police with the help of hashtag#CapHPI to check if UK cars are on finance. There is a gap in the policing response that is being exploited.
The response:
- Hmmm … is NaVCIS offering to step up and help? Does a vehicle associated with finance fraud receive attention that one the subject of rental fraud does not?
- Regarding ‘transnational’ crime, it appears once a vehicle is abroad the assistance the UK can expect from our European neighbours has, post-Brexit, decreased or dissolved. I therefore assume the checks to which you refer are pre-UK departures i.e. at the ports. Is the same applied to rental vehicles and if not, could it be?
To which NaVCIS replied:
NaVCIS are funded by the Finance and Leasing Association hashtag#FLA to investigate the theft/ fraud of finance cars. I know the rental market suffer from similar criminality but we do not receive any sponsorship from this sector to provide this service for them.
to which the following comment was posted:
- I am struggling with the apparent disconnect, the compartmentalisation of experience & knowledge.
- I note NaVCIS investigate the theft/ fraud of FINANCED cars and it is understood RENTAL car companies suffer similar criminality.
- Do RENTAL companies need to similarly fund NaVCIS to benefit from crime prevention &/or detection service. Is this an issue for the BVRLA?
- Are you checks referred to pre-UK departure i.e. undertaken to determine whether a vehicle leaving the country is financed?
- This appears more pertinent to vehicles the subject of a hire agreement that may explicitly require they remain in the UK
- It is encouraging to read there are vehicle seizures in Europe, but are these seized vehicles returned home, to the UK?
- How do police constabularies and insurers benefit from the established NaVCIS processes insofar as repatriation is concerned?
No reply was received. Hopefully, whilst NaVCIS may not be providing the service to the Rental industry, they are, at least, sharing their expertise.
Comment:
While partnership models between police services and industry can enhance resources and expertise, this structure raises broader questions about consistency and fairness in the delivery of policing services. Public confidence in policing is underpinned by the principle that protection and investigative support are provided impartially and equitably, regardless of a sector’s ability to contribute financially.
This comment is offered in the interest of encouraging reflection on how policing resources are allocated, and whether current models ensure fair and consistent service across all affected sectors. An open discussion may be beneficial to assess whether adjustments are needed to uphold the principles of impartiality and equal access to justice.