4.4. Vehicle Rental Companies

Following a request made of the NPCC, FOI Ref: 2233/2025, which was refused citing s.14 – vexatious, the below and associated links are submitted to support an Internal Review request.

Public Duty, Equality, and the Accountability of NaVCIS in the Fight Against Vehicle Crime

Concerning a vehicle rental company’s woes (the taking of their vehicles), NaVCIS commented that the issue was similar to their environment, to the ‘theft’ of financed 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.’

Note: ‘Thief’ and ‘fraud’ in the same ‘breath’, evidencing the misunderstanding I have commented upon!

Additionally, the above statement could cause the reader to consider that the ‘theft’ may amount to a civil dispute – constabularies commonly content to record disputes as such; ‘no crime’ (to investigate), the parties are referred to civil remedies.

In response to the above NaVCIS comment, I wrote,:

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?

The response:

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.

The response received from NaVCIS – that its services are not extended to certain crime victims because those sectors do not provide funding – raises questions & concerns regarding the proper function of public authorities and the principle of equitable policing.

The admission above is potentially problematic for several reasons.

1. The Blurring of Public and Private Interests

NaVCIS is operated under the governance of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and is, in part, composed of seconded serving police officers. As such, it is not a private contractor – it is a public authority in function, subject to the same legal obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Equality Act 2010, and common law duties of fairness and reasonableness.

The idea that such a unit chooses which crimes to investigate based on private-sector sponsorship appears at odds with core policing principles established in Peelian principles, particularly:

“To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.”

2. Inequity and Two-Tiered Justice

An unwillingness or refusal to assist certain victims – such as rental companies or individual consumers – because they are not funding partners, establishes a two-tiered system of justice. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, requires public bodies to:

“Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.”

While the Act directly protects individual characteristics, the principle of equal access to justice and fair treatment by public servants must apply equally to victims of similar offences.

3. The Risk of Skewed Statistics and Public Perception

By selectively applying investigative resources based on funding, NaVCIS influences not only operational policing but also national crime statistics. Vehicles recovered by NaVCIS are often counted in “stolen vehicle” metrics – but if they are fraudulently obtained rather than stolen, this misclassifies the nature of the crime, misleading policy, funding decisions, and public understanding.

This echoes concerns raised by Prof. Tim Newburn (LSE, Criminology, 2013), who observed that:

“Policing partnerships that embed private sector interests risk distorting crime priorities and outcomes.”

4. Precedent and Accountability

In R (Coughlan) v North and East Devon Health Authority [2001] QB 213, the Court of Appeal held that public bodies must not frustrate legitimate expectations, especially when their function affects the public. Victims of vehicle fraud and theft – regardless of the funding source – have a legitimate expectation of fair treatment and police engagement.

Further, the Information Commissioner’s Office has ruled in multiple decision notices (e.g. FS50849334, FS50502227) that functionally public authorities cannot refuse transparency or accountability because of contractual funding arrangements. The source of funding does not excuse a departure from public duty.

5. Policy, Ethics, and the Risk of Erosion in Trust

Policing that hinges on private funding risks violating Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998. While not always directly applicable to operational policing decisions, these rights reinforce the expectation that legal disputes – such as those concerning the unlawful taking of vehicles – are treated impartially and fairly.

Conclusion

The reluctance of NaVCIS to assist non-paying sectors – despite those sectors experiencing similar criminality – appears unethical, it may be considered unlawful by some and could call into question the integrity of public policing. It also skews national crime recording, leads to unequal access to justice, and could damage public confidence in the neutrality of the police.

Given these concerns, there is an undeniable serious purpose behind the FOIA request made to the NPCC: to investigate how public policing functions are being selectively delivered, and to question whether that is lawful, transparent, and just.

Caveat / Disclaimer

The views and statements expressed in this document are solely those of the author and do not reflect the opinions, policies, or positions of any affiliated organisation, entity, or professional body. They are presented in good faith for the purpose of clarification, transparency, and constructive engagement.

This document is not intended to constitute legal advice, guidance, or authoritative commentary on the Freedom of Information Act 2000, data protection legislation, or any related regulatory framework. It is provided for consideration and reflection only, with the aim of avoiding miscommunication and ensuring fair and informed discussion of the issues raised.

Readers are encouraged to seek independent legal or professional advice where appropriate and to consider the broader implications of decision-making within the context of public accountability and lawful administrative practice.

NEXT PAGE – The PNC – a Blunt Tool?

The Request & Refusal:

The Internal Review (IR) submissions are provided on the associated pages: