Collaboration is a recurring theme in discussions about vehicle crime. Police, insurers, manufacturers, technology providers etc. … frequently described as “working together” to address a problem that is both complex and persistent.
The National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership (NVCRP) is one such initiative, positioned as a cross-sector effort to improve outcomes. However, recent disclosures raise an important question:
- What does collaboration actually mean in practice?
The Engagement
In May 2025, I was approached to engage with NVCRP following my work in the vehicle crime space. This involved:
- a structured submission of some 20 suggestions
- discussions
- an invitation to participate in a ‘steering group’.
The engagement was presented as:
- collaborative,
- solution-focused,
- aprecaitive of input.
The Reality
Subsequent disclosures, including internal correspondence, suggest a different position. An internal email dated August 2025 indicates that:
- the strategy and its aims had already been agreed,
- selected individuals were to be engaged to “feel involved”,
- there was no intention to invite alteration to those aims.
The purpose of the engagement was therefore not to shape strategy, but to present it.
The Outcome
Following that engagement:
- no further communication was received
- no outcomes were shared,
- no explanation was provided.
More recently, it has been confirmed that:
- no action was taken in relation to my involvement,
- none of the submitted proposals were progressed,
- no further discussion took place.
The Missing Piece: Accountability
This raises several concerns.
- Was the engagement accurately represented?
The process was presented as collaborative, yet appears to have been predetermined.
- Were contributions properly considered?
There is no evidence that submissions were evaluated, recorded, or acted upon.
- Where is the governance?
No records of decision-making, outcomes, or conclusions have been identified.
Why This Matters
This is not a personal grievance. It goes to the heart of how initiatives such as NVCRP operate. If collaboration is:
- selective,
- controlled, or
- designed primarily to secure endorsement,
its effectiveness is limited. More importantly, its credibility is at risk.
A Wider Question
Public statements continue to emphasise:
- collaboration,
- partnership working,and
- shared effort.
These are important principles, but they require substance.
- If external input is invited, how is it used?
- If engagement takes place, how is it recorded?
- If ideas are submitted, how are they assessed?
Conclusion
Vehicle crime will not be addressed through alignment alone. It requires:
- challenge,
- transparency, and
- a willingness to adapt.
Collaboration is not simply about bringing people into the room. It is about what happens next.
For ongoing commentary and practical proposals, follow updates under #CarCrimeUK on LinkedIn.
14/04/2026 LinkedIn post – National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership
Encouraging progress in tackling vehicle crime, with stolen vehicles worth over £41m recovered in 2025, a clear sign that collective efforts are making an impact.
These are great statistics, but they also highlight an important point: working together is key.
Strong collaboration between police, industry, and technology providers continues to play a vital role in disrupting organised vehicle crime and improving recovery outcomes.
As Mark Kameen MSc, former NVCRP Lead, notes in the article, strengthening intelligence sharing between law enforcement and the private sector is essential in tackling this issue.
Read the full article: https://ow.ly/A2q850YIF3Z
Collaboration remains critical as we continue the fight against vehicle crime.
#VehicleCrime#Collaboration#PartnershipWorking#NVCRP#CarCrime#VehicleTheft