3. FLA & the FoIA - Car Crime U.K.

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.

The NPCC has, concerning a request, directed me to the FLA for information. I would willingly present the request to the FLA, however, to my knowledge, the NPCC/NaVCIS have partnered with a private sector organisation to whom the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) does not apply.

Possibly, there is an agreement that makes the FLA subject to the FoIA? However, the NPCC has made no mention of this. I have also noted no copy for he NaVCIS/FLA agreement in the NPCC’s disclosure logs – does this exist? If so, does the agreement require, for example, ‘All Parties to comply with the provisions of the DPA, the FOIA and the EIR’?

I do not have a login/access to the FLA’s NaVCIS ‘review group‘.

It does not appear NaVCIS is separately recorded as a separate Authroity subject to the FoIA.

It appears the NPCC has created a situation whereby they must necessarily be subject to FoIA requests for this associated unit, NaVCIS, which falls under their remit.

Why This Request Must Be Made to the NPCC: A Review of Transparency Risks

Context: The information sought pertains to the operations, activities, and oversight of NaVCIS (National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service), specifically in its capacity as an intelligence unit supporting the Finance and Leasing Association (FLA). While NaVCIS operates under the umbrella of UK policing, it is funded and directed by a private trade body – the FLA. Unfortunately, the FLA is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

FOIA Scope Limitation: Under section 3 of the FOIA, the Act applies only to:

Public authorities listed in Schedule 1 (including police forces and government departments);
Publicly owned companies as defined under the Act.

The FLA is neither a public authority nor a publicly owned company, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose any operational or funding information. This poses a significant transparency challenge, particularly when public police powers or systems (such as PNC LoS markers, port interception, or international repatriation) are exercised at the behest or for the benefit of a private funder.

The Implications of This FOIA Gap: A Prejudicial Relationship?

This exclusivity creates a risk of prejudice, for several reasons:

Lack of Public Scrutiny of Police Functions

NaVCIS, while branded as a law enforcement function, is:

Not directly accountable to Parliament;
Funded by an industry body representing lenders;
Empowered to utilise state policing infrastructure (e.g. PNC, port access, DVLA notifications).

Yet the public cannot scrutinise the objectives, case selection, prioritisation or outcomes of its operations if they are determined in whole or part by the FLA, which is exempt from FOIA.

Asymmetric Access and Influence

This relationship potentially favours a specific industry over individual victims, rival insurers, or other sectors (e.g. vehicle rental, leasing or independent recovery services).

The FLA can:

Fund NaVCIS;
Receive bespoke services;
Potentially receive privileged access to police-grade enforcement mechanisms.

Yet individual victims or smaller stakeholders must either pay additional fees or are refused assistance altogether (as has occurred in practice).

Accountability Risks

This hybrid public-private model blurs lines of accountability. The NPCC and NaVCIS maintain that NaVCIS is not a separate public authority, and therefore not directly subject to FOIA. If the information is also not held by the NPCC – but by the FLA, who is exempt – the public has no statutory route to oversight.

This undermines the constitutional balance FOIA was designed to protect and creates a shadow zone where:

Police powers are exercised on behalf of private interests;
But no entity is directly accountable under transparency law.

Why the NPCC Must Be the FOIA Route

Given this legal architecture, the only viable FOIA route is via the NPCC, for these reasons:

The NPCC hosts or oversees NaVCIS personnel.
NaVCIS exercises police functions with the support and permission of national policing bodies.
Even if the NPCC does not “hold” all the data, they are the most appropriate point of contact with a statutory responsibility under FOIA.
The NPCC is in a position to liaise with NaVCIS and review funding arrangements, performance statistics, case management, and oversight protocols—even if operated in conjunction with the FLA.

To deny information on the basis that it (in part of whole) is held elsewhere (by the FLA) is to create a system of unaccountable policing – a functional “privatisation” of police service to the highest bidder, hidden from public view.

I am not suggesting the NPCC has denied disclosure on the basis that the FLA holds the information, but rather that this is in effect the situation. I would not need to trouble the NPCC, at least for some of the information, if it were not for the fact that they have partnered with an organisation not subject to the FoIA.

Conclusion

This request, made to the NPCC, reflects a constitutional necessity: to safeguard public access to information where state powers are being exercised in a quasi-commercial context.

The ICO has made clear that when public authorities enter into partnership or outsourcing arrangements, care must be taken to ensure the public retains the ability to understand and oversee such operations

In summary, this FOIA request to the NPCC is essential not simply for the data it seeks, but for the principle of transparent policing in a democracy.

NEXT PAGE – FoIA ‘Value & Serious Purpose:

The Request & Refusal:

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