A problem acknowledged — but how big is it?
January 2026 — I raise the issue formally; ‘The Extent of Weeding‘ (summary) &
In January 2026 I submitted detailed material to the Home Office and others setting out my concern that six-week weeding might explain part of the substantial difference I had identified between police-recorded vehicle thefts and stolen-vehicle information reaching DVLA.
The concern was not merely statistical. If a stolen marker disappears, opportunities for recovery, investigation and warning subsequent users of vehicle information may disappear with it.
There was little substantive engagement.
25 June 2026 — the National Audit Office obtains confirmation
I subsequently approached the National Audit Office.
The NAO took the matter up with the Home Office and recorded the explanation it received from a Home Office official.
The NAO confirmed that:
Lost/Stolen markers initially remain unconfirmed;
only confirmed markers are included in information available to DVLA;
unconfirmed markers are removed from PNC after six weeks; and
the Home Office accepted that this process causes a discrepancy between police and DVLA databases.
That was an important development.
What had begun as a concern arising from individual cases and data analysis was now a confirmed national-system issue.
- 28/05/2026 – I wrote to the National Audit Office (NAO)
- 25/06/2026 – the NAO responded; a known problem according to the Home Office
Attention then turned to VE602/VE602J – the PNC process which produces reminders about records approaching weeding. I made a request to the Home Office for information
- 29/07/2026 – Home Office response – the Home Office PNC Services generates weekly notifications for forces but the information is held on behalf of constabularies; try the NPCC
- 29/07/2026 – NPCC request regarding the ‘National Governance and Assurance of VE602 / VE602J Vehicle Weeding Reports‘
- 05/08/2026 – The NPCC response – they refuse to disclose the information citing various aspects amounting to ‘s.14 -vexatious’
- 09/08/2026 – an Internal Review is submitted challenging the NPCC’s statements.
- 02/09/2026 – The NPCC’s Internal Review.
- 03/09/2026 – Response to the NPCC raising questions, seeking clarification
- 03/09/2026 – NPCC response -‘not prepared to enter further correspondence ‘
I challenged that decision in detail.
Amongst other things, I pointed out that the list relied upon by NPCC mixed together original requests, Internal Reviews, ICO appeals and correspondence; that many of the matters were substantively different; that there had been no demonstrated burden from this particular request; and that this request existed only because of new information supplied by the Home Office in July 2026.
2 September 2026 — the Internal Review materially qualifies the original refusal
The NPCC upheld section 14.
But its Internal Review is important because it also materially qualified several aspects of the original reasoning.
It accepted that:
not every reference relied upon represented a separate originating FOIA request;
some were Internal Reviews, ICO complaints or subsequent correspondence;
the VE602 request differed in wording from earlier requests;
it arose after the Home Office directed me towards NPCC;
my concerns have a genuine public-interest element;
my motive was not malicious or intended to harass;
the request itself was courteous; and
the original refusal had “perhaps overstated the degree of similarity” with the request currently before the Information Tribunal.
The review also expressly said:
“Nothing in this review concludes that your concerns are frivolous…”
and acknowledged that vehicle-theft recording “plainly is” important.
Yet disclosure was still refused because the NPCC considered the cumulative history of my engagement on interconnected vehicle issues disproportionate.
That produces an unusual position.
The NPCC now accepts that the particular issue has serious purpose and public-interest value, accepts that important parts of its original characterisation required qualification, but still will not answer the underlying governance questions through FOIA.
[Link: NPCC Internal Review 3103/2026 – 2 September 2026]
11 September 2026 — taking FOIA out of the equation
I work professionally in vehicle crime. It is therefore unsurprising that the information-rights questions I ask frequently concern vehicles.
The difficulty is that the NPCC’s present approach allows disparate matters within that specialist field to be treated as interconnected when assessing section 14.
The practical result is that FOIA is becoming increasingly incapable of providing an answer to a problem which the NPCC itself accepts has substance.
So today I have changed tack.
I have written directly to the NPCC outside the FOIA process and asked that the matter be treated as an operational and public-interest notification.
The immediate questions are no longer complicated:
How many stolen-vehicle records reach the VE602 warning stages because they remain unconfirmed?
How many ultimately disappear from PNC?
What happens to those vehicles afterwards?
Who nationally audits the process?
And, given that the problem is now acknowledged:
Why should automatic six-week deletion continue without effective national assurance?
My view is that the immediate risk warrants intervention and that the longer-term position requires an audit.
This is no longer merely a question about obtaining information.
It is about what happens when a vehicle has been reported stolen, the administrative confirmation is missed, the marker disappears — and nobody appears able to say how often that happens.
