Recent exchanges on the subject of crime report disclosure have reignited the concerns about the process.
The issue of ‘consent’ and ‘Subject Access Request’ applications has given rise to some odd exchanges. The difficulty associated with obtaining information is known to the police, apparently the subject of ongoing consideration – yet evidence of attention has yet to be forthcoming.
The latest exchanges obtained relate to 2022 & 2023 considerations disclosed by the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) can be read here. But our request was for late-2024 and early 2025 information.
The recent and ongoing exchanges resulting from an approach to Essex police can be read here. Apparently, they have raised the matter with the ICO and NPCC following the approaches from ‘others’. As of yet, Essex has not provided these exchanges.
The subject of police disclosures continues to be raised due, it appears, primarily:
- Constabularies are unable to obtain staff
- The existence of a restrictive Memorandum of Understanding (MoU):
- can only be utilised by some insurers and
- is convoluted
The issue of the MoU being selective, the inequality, was raised almost a year ago with Staffordshire Constabulary which was, as of 06/2023 ‘not actually dealing with any insurance requests at the moment simply due to capacity‘ (source).
Police information is commonly sought about:
- Road Traffic Collision (RTC) events
- Crimes – from the perspective of this site, vehicle thefts
An aspect of RTC reports receiving attention was section 170 – more about which can be read here.
Regarding car crime, approaches are generally made to the police for a copy of the crime report insofar as they relate to an allegation of theft (though it may be arson or vandalism).
Police reports tend to be the aspect of a theft claim that gives rise to the greatest resolution delay. The issue has been raised before, but there appears to be little appetite to address this despite:
- An increase in vehicle thefts
- A decrease in stolen vehicles recovered
- Many recoveries are of a collection of parts i.e. the vehicle remains a total loss, a claim to be reimbursed the full vehicle value continues.
There are more victims, more claims that need to progress to settlement … and a feeling by some that the police are neither a deterrent nor interested in the crime. Faced with ‘professional’ and ‘organised’ criminals, possibly it is felt little can be done (we disagree).
However, the crime alleged, faced with a ‘failure’ to prevent this and unable to return the vehicle to the owner in an ‘as was’ condition, surely the next best thing would be to help the victim to put the distress, inconvenience and financial hardship behind them – help their insurance claim be finalised and ‘closure’ achieved?
Yet the issue of crime report disclosure appears to be of little concern to many, and receives less attention than the disclosure of RTC reports.
There are 43 UK constabularies and one MoU – yet the approach to disclosure varies, as does the cost* of a report and the time frame in which the report will be provided.
- Is the MoU fit for purpose, necessary?
The MoU has its merits, though it has become convoluted, prejudices non-ABI members and is a less straightforward procedure for those acting on behalf of an insurer. That it removes the need for an insured’s consent to disclosure may be considered a benefit by some – but this is questionable.
*£150+ appears excessive for what is often a template document with no evidence of investigation, theft allegations occasionally being closed within hours.