250128 FoIA request to the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the below disclosure can be found here, attached to the 25/03/2025 response. The disclosure was updated 17/07/2025, to include email domains of the parties exchanging emails and this can be read here or at the WDTK link. The information also appears below.
Guidance & Exchanges about Police Report Disclosure Legal Gateways
28/01/2025
Dear National Police Chiefs’ Council,
I understand in 2024 you had exchanges with Essex police regarding access to police records, the disclosure of police crime reports (separate from the S170 RTA disclosure issues of 2023). Seemingly parties had been seeking access to Essex police records other than by use of the MoU, possibly due to it excluding many insurers. I understand Essex, having received disclosure approaches from various parties, referred this issue to the NPCC.
This is likely to have been raised in late 2024, Essex wished for clarity about the correct route for obtaining personal data related to insurance claims.
I am seeking the exchanges between the NPCC and constabularies about this issue and the related information you possess about:
1. the consideration of ‘consent’ as a lawful means to obtain a police report,
2. s.184 of the DPA, and
3. the MoU guidance overriding or being more appropriate than, a legislated Third-Party Subject Access Request.
Thank you
Disclosures:
06/09/2022 @ 09:17 from NPFDU to:
@college.police.uk
@sussex.police.uk
@npcc.police.uk
@college.police.uk
@college.police.uk
@lincs.police.uk
Subject – Road Traffic Collisions – information sharing with 3rd parties
For info, as discussed.
- Att 01 of 01 S21 Reasonably accessible
by other means
22/05/2023 @ 09:07 from Staffordshire Police to
@npcc.police.uk
@lancashire.police.uk
Subject – Road Traffic Collisions – data sharing issue for RoA
Can you help us please with some steer/advice.
Surrey raised an issue that since the new ABI-NPCC agreement (attached) they are getting an increase in RoA* requests due to their compliance with the agreement in refusing requests from those who do not meet its expectations. It has prompted more discussion as this is work that has just been passed into my team and we have been working through the processes available, asking questions from other forces and many realising that their processes need reviewing. We are all now concerned by doing such it will push requests to RoA.
So based upon this new ABI-NPCC we have worked out that requests fall as on the attached word doc (ABI-NPCC workflows), it is the requests in red/box 4 that are the ones we are all becoming a bit stuck on.
I have found a NPCC Disclosure policy (attached), which is not dated and no longer available on the College website & it alludes that the disclosures should be done but does not give a defined lawful basis. Whilst we can charge the charges do not now cover the costs to forces and certainly in Staffs we are looking at only do those disclosures that we have an obligation to do.
Any thoughts would be gratefully received as what none of us want to do is to refuse to do work that is not covered by the ABI-NPCC or by civil proceedings and then it results in being pushed to RoA.
I have copied below what is on the meeting notes as the query I originally received.
Hope all this makes sense but the general consensus is we could do with some NPCC help.
Many thanks in advance
Best wishes
**S40(2)**
Attachment:
TS-Surrey query 05042023;
In the SE region we are receiving SAR requests from the owner of a loss adjustment company who, since the publication of the latest ABI / NPCC MOG, is no longer able to apply for information under Appendix D as the process is limited to Insurance companies who are signatories to the MOU.
A conversation has taken place between the force in question and the ICO to determine if they considered this to be enforced SAR, however the ICO sat on the fence a bit and would not give a definitive answer although the force is maintaining their position at this time as it is not within the spirit of the act.
S40(2)*
Any advice, or examples of similar activity would be welcome.
S40(2) – always disclosed to loss adjusters etc and seen the new ABI, looking at changes in their process in
light of this. Concerns re enforced RoA.
S40(2) – they were charging and doing the work, will check process.
S40(2)– SP have been through the process and agree (MIB/solicitors down civil route and then ABI only)
*S40(2) – redacted entry – likely an individual’s name
CCUK COMMENT:
With regard to the comments in the above ‘attachment’ apparently from Surrey police, it appears they are referring to a TP SAR presented to Thames Valley Police (TVP).
- Did the ICO consider this an enforced SAR?
No. The ICO did not consider this ‘enforced SAR
- TVP wrote – ‘The ICO sat on the fence a bit and would not give a definitive answer’
The ICO has explained that the approach was NOT an enforced SAR
- TVP wrote ‘The force is maintaining their position at this time as it is ‘not within the spirit of the act’.
TVP did maintain this position despite the ICO being very clear; ‘not in the spirit of the Act (DPA)’ is not a valid exemption
TVR apologised for their conduct, which to be intimidation; the suggestion that the TP SAR (RoA) approach was an enforced SAR, a criminal offence.
14/06/2023 @ 10:18 from Staffordshire police to:
@westmidlands.police.uk
@derbyshire.police.uk
@westmercia.police.uk
@leics.police.uk
@derbyshire.police.uk
@notts.police.uk
@warwickshire.police.uk
@warwickshire.police.uk
@westmercia.police.uk
@northants.police.uk
@westmidlands.police.uk
@staffordshire.police.uk
@npfdu.police.uk
@lancashire.police.uk
@npcc.police.uk
Subject – Police Disclosure of Information – RTCs – exchange of personal details
Hello all,
- Att 01 of 02 S21 reasonably accessible by other means – provided in NPCC FOI response 233/23.
- Att 02 of 02: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread 02 above.
In response/to let you all know the issues around the new insurance ABI pushing requests to Right of Access was raised at the last NSRG. I sent the attached email to S40(2) in the meantime the attached letter was sent to all forces, not sure if it has reached you. We are waiting for further assistance from NPCC.
Here at Staffs we are not actually dealing with any insurance requests at the moment simply due to capacity and we are considering asking for a sign off from our DCC that we no longer do them at all, however we have to consider the risks around this.
Regards
S40(2)
13/07/2023 @ 08:09 from Staffordshire police to:
@npcc.police.uk
@lancashire.police.uk
@surrey.pnn.police.uk
Subject – Road Traffic Collisions – data sharing issue for RoA
- Att 01 of 04: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread above.
- Att 02 of 04: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread above.
- Att 03 of 04: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread above.
- Attachment 01 of 01 to this email titled: Annex B 03 18032025 provided by way of attachment
Hope you are ok ? further to my below/attached we are experiencing significant issues at Staffs with the number of requests to the point that we have now put a stop all RTC requests due to capacity. We are being quoted the attached (Road-collision-guidance-2016) which is on the College site but pre DPA 2018 and as you can imagine solicitors/insurers are being exceptionally demanding and Right of Access requests are now starting to trickle in.
Can NPCC give any clear steer to forces on this as I am still getting queries from others coming my way.
Many thanks in advance
S40(2)
13/07/2023 @ 11:29 from NPCC to:
@staffordshire.police.uk
@lancashire.police.uk
@surrey.pnn.police.uk
@derbyshire.police.uk
@npcc.police.uk
Subject – Road Taffic (sic) Collisions – data sharing issues for RoA
- Att 01 of 04: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread 04 above.
- Att 02 of 04: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread 02 above
- Att 03 of 04: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread 01 above.
- Att 04 of 04: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread 02 above.
Apologies for missing your original email in my mountain.
The guidance referred to was originally written by the CPS and pretty much copied and pasted by the CoP, who I was told by coincidence today don’t know who authored it.
NPCC Roads Policing have stated that their intention is that the updated s170 RTA guidance (due in next few weeks) will rescind any previous guidance in this area including the CPS/CoP document which as you rightly point out is out of , and not really a CoP product anyway.
Regarding the initial query, my take is that the SAR route is inappropriate
a) because it does not necessarily result in the disclosure of all the data sought for all the reasons we know, and
b) it is effectively involves coercion.
S40(2) the legal basis for disclosing surely is the same for members and non-members of the ABI? I would advocate that forces accept non-ABI requests and fully recover their costs (even if they are above the ABI MOU ones), but that is a matter for forces.
Ideally, we would have a united NPCC position, but the continued lack of appetite for an NPCC lead in the civil disclosure/family court area leaves us in a messy predicament. Ultimately apart from the RoA abuse this feels no longer a DP issue, but a co-ordination one.
It could be something that we could raise to the Data Board for a steer on whether ABI should continue their monopoly and the wider issue of no NPCC lead in this area.
I’d welcome others’ views on this.
regards
CCUK COMMENT:
- re ‘a’ above – This suggests a lack of leadership and understanding about the process and the disclosure. The relevant data could be provided. Where there are redactions, subject to what these are, they will generally be acceptable or will give rise to further enquiry. Redactions, withheld information, can be as telling as that which is disclosed.
- re ‘b’ above – This stance can be challenged both legally and logically, and there are more proportionate responses the police could adopt if their concerns were genuine. Further comment can be found here.
13/07/2023 @ 11:44 from NPFDU to:
@npcc.police.uk
@staffordshire.police.uk
@lancashire.police.uk
@surrey.pnn.police.uk
@derbyshire.police.uk
Subject – Road Traffic Collisions – Data Sharing issue for RoA
Hi all,
- Att 01 of 05: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread 01 above.
- Att 02 of 05: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread 02 above.
- Att 03 of 05: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means. Published online by LMA.
- Att 04 of 05: S21 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicated at email thread 02 above.
- Attachment 05 of 05 to this email titled: Annex B04 18032025 provided by way of attachment
Not sure if this helps at all as I’m no expert in this area, but FYI just in case.
The NPCC Economic & Cyber Crime Portfolio lead on these types of disclosures at the moment. S40(2)
is the DP lead for this as it sits with CoLP. They drafted and led on the attached ABI guidance. I’ve also attached the guidance that Roads Policing developed as it may be relevant.
S40(2) has previously provided the below view re ABI vs non-ABI members as a non-ABI member had
challenged this approach:
- The basis for the ABI agreement is that they have a standards-based approach to membership. Therefore, we
can be assured that members of the ABI maintain appropriate privacy and protection standards and have
confidence in their management of the information we share. - Non-ABI members have to be considered on a case-by-case basis by each force as there is no consistency
with third parties. There is a suggestion that we should mirror the ABI agreement for Lloyds members,
this operates in a very similar way, and is perhaps the next logical extension of the agreement. - With so many brokers and independent insurance companies we are unlikely to find common ground surrounding the privacy and protection assurances that we require, we are therefore bound to continue considering these requests independently. Even with the ABI agreement in place Forces are still making voluntary disclosures under the act – the ABI agreement provides no explicit gateway, just a formal process with assurance.
He has also provided steer a few times around ABI queries so I’ve attached my summary email for info.
I also believe they’re looking at reviewing/updating the attached old Lloyds guidance as (like ABI) they have a more consistent standards-based approach to membership.
If it’s no relevant, obviously delete and ignore… J
Regards
COMMENT
For those of you in the know, the above view was provided some years ago. An extract and comment can be read here.
However, the MoU is a distraction – unnecessary, cumbersome. A lawful process, a legal gateway, is ‘consent’. With consent, the consideration about ABI membership, form completion, disclosure to specific parties etc., becomes redundant.
05/05/2023 @ 15:49 from NPFDU to:
@sussex.police.uk
@npfdu.police.uk
@sussex.police.uk
@derbyshire.police.uk
Subject – Sharing collision data with members of the public
Afternoon S40(2)
- Att 01 of 02 : S42 Legal Professional Privilege
- Att 02 of 02 : S40 Personal Information
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this.
This afternoon I discussed the case with the NPCC Data Responsibility Lead S40(2). Our conclusion was we agreed with Weightman’s analysis.
By coincidence early today we both met a representative from the ICO and during a wide ranging catch-up we talked about the difficulties (in some circumstances) of using personal data obtained for law enforcement purposes for other purposes which fall under the UK GDPR. This scenario is a case in point.
S40(2) and I have therefore agreed that this would be a useful matter to discuss further with our ICO contact with a view to producing data protection advice on the disclosure issues covered in your case. That advice may then be useful for any guidance your portfolio subsequently issues.
Can you advise whether you are content for us to share the Weightman’s analysis with the ICO as part of our planned work?
Regards
09/06/2023 @ 08:29 from NPCC to:
@sussex.police.uk
@derbyshire.police.uk
Subject – Police Disclosure of Information in relation to Section 170 Road Traffic Act 1988 (exchange of personal details)
Morning S40(2),
- Att 01 of 01 S42 Legal Professional Privilidge
Attached, which has been offered to us by Beds, may be useful for our discussions later.
Regards
S40(2)
13/07/2023 @ 10:02 from NPCC to:
@sussex.police.uk
Subject – CoP Policy when dealing with disclosure of information held by the police to third parties in
Morning S40(2)
Att 01 of 01 Reasonably accessible by other means – duplicate of above in email thread 01 above.
Someone forwarded attached to me – assuming it is still current, do we need to reference it in the revised RP guidance?
Regards
16/07/2025 FoIA re information Circulation Membership to the NPCC