Skip to content
Car Crime U.K.

Car Crime U.K.

Understanding Vehicle Theft, Fraud and Identity

Menu
  • Vehicle Crime
    • ‘Form A Squad’ – Ineffective Action
      • The Vehicle Crime Task Force (VCT) – 2019
      • 2022 to 2023 National Vehicle Crime Working Group
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found in the U.K.
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found Abroad
    • OPERATION IGNEOUS – reducing reported car theft by 30%
    • Title Law
  • LoS* Data
  • Guidance / Help
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
    • Resources
      • Your Vehicle Theft Insurance Claim
      • Police Contact Emails
    • Links
  • Police Reports
    • Police Theft Reports
    • Police Collision Reports
    • Police Disclosure Delays
  • News
  • Policy & Research
  • Articles Archive
  • Contact
Menu

DVLA vs Constabulary Data

The ‘stolen’ data provided by the DVLA will, as described at ‘recording methodologies‘, always understate the actual LoS (Lost or Stolen) records held by a constabulary which, will also not detail the full extent of the issue. Furthermore, constabulary data is lacking much of that which would be expected to enable accurate analysis to be undertaken.

West Mercia 2023 DVLA CAR LoS data:

In 2023, according to the DVLA, they received 815 ‘stolen’ notifications and became aware of 374 recoveries – a recovery rate of about 46%:

However, in 2023, according to West Mercia Police records, they recorded an additional 83 stolen cars, about 10% more, a total of 898 cars.

Of these, 300 were marked as ‘found’ or ‘recovered’, about 33% of the total number taken.

Whilst overall (2023 to 2024) vehicle taking is believed to have dropped, West Mercia is one of the constabularies that saw an increase in ‘stolen’ numbers and a decrease in their recovery rate:

West Mercia 2024 DVLA CAR LoS data:

In 2024, the DVLA received 914 ‘stolen’ notifications from W. Mercia Police (the records can be found here) and became aware of 385 recoveries – a recovery rate of about 42%:

However, in 2024, according to West Mercia Police records, they recorded an additional 72 stolen cars, a total of 986 cars.

Of these, 254 were marked as ‘found’ or ‘recovered’, about 26% of the total number taken.


Clarification has been sought:

Whilst I thank you for the information provided, please could you address the following.

I note reference to the data not being ‘mandatory’ but it is not understood how the input data would not be generated from the VRM and in turn most fields populated automatically.  The questions below should help to convey the anomalies that do not appear to arise from a manual input.

  1. How are the fields relating to vehicle description input?

Whilst you advise:

‘whilst it is best practise to upload the property link reason from stolen to recovered if it is found, it is not always completed, especially where it takes a prolonged period to locate the vehicle, or the vehicle was found by another force.  As such the vehicles listed as stolen may not still be outstanding.’

a vehicle not marked ‘recovered’ i.e. not removed from the PNC LoS register, that retains the LoS marker will, for example, provide a false-positive to ANPR; alert as stolen whereas it is not, giving rise to a waste of police resources and inconvenience for the party in possession of the vehicle.

  • From where has your ‘recovered’ & ‘found’ data been obtained, if not from the PNC?

It appears the information is being sourced from another data set. In turn, that you are unable to provide, if asked, meaningful recovery information – see ‘8’ below.

2023 – The offence table conveys a total of 1,616 vehicles taken. The spreadsheet on individual vehicles conveys a total of 1,497, a difference of 209 vehicles. 

  • Please can you explain this.

The difference cannot be explained by removing the ‘attempted’ offences as these total 37 for the year.

  • 2023/24 – What is the difference between ‘found’ and ‘recovered’
  • 2023, 10 of the taken vehicles are without vehicle category, type, make or model why?
  1. 2024 this applies to 24 vehicles – I assume the explanation to be the same as above – please confirm or clarify
  • Of the 10, 7 have a ‘VRM2’ i.e. the VRM age identifier; how is this possible yet provision of the aforementioned identifiers is not?
  • 2024, of the 24 vehicles, 23 have an age identifier.  I assume the explanation for the lack of accompanying data will be as above – please confirm or clarify
  • 11 ‘vehicle make’ entries are held under ‘ROVER’, yet the model is ‘RANGE ROVER’; how has this arisen?

The associated ‘make’ I would anticipate being ‘LAND ROVER’, as recorded in multiple other entries.

  • Please could you review the data as it pertains to stolen/recovered cars in 2024.  According to the DVLA they received notification of 385 car recoveries, your data indicates W Mercia police recovered 131 cars less, a total of 254 i.e. a recovery rate of just 26%

The DVLA data can be found here – https://carcrime.uk/dvla-stolen-car-data-w-mercia-police/

Recent Posts:

  • The Problem With Crime Numbers:
  • When Recorded Theft Is Not Believed
  • NaVCIS Funding: Still No Specifics
  • Agreed Police disclosure procedures not followed
  • £50 for a Police Report Update?
  • Section 184 Data Protection Act 2018
  • Keyless Taking or Key Questions?
  • When ‘Sale or Return’ Goes Wrong
  • BBC Crimewatch ‘Car Cloning’
  • Keyless Vehicle Theft:
  • Accusations of Criminality
  • Thefts Down – Except for Newer Cars!
  • Increase Pre-Crush Retention Period to 28 days?
  • Reducing Vehicle Theft by up to 30%
  • ‘The Others’ … are you among them?
  • Vehicle Abandonments Raise Questions Over Theft Claims
  • The State of Vehicle Taking in the UK: A Crisis of Enforcement, Not Engineering
  • Keystone Krooks – but £1.4 million stolen!
  • 2024 Vehicle Theft – how well (or otherwise) did your constabulary perform?
  • Vehicle Crime. Is Police Language Bluring Facts?
  • Superficial Approach to Vehicle Taking Overlooked Organised Crime
  • Keyless Vehicle Taking – Really?
  • Accuracy & Consistency Required
  • Do we need new legislation?
  • A System Built on Blind Faith? The Flaws in Police Information Dissemination
  • Which? … What?
  • The Rise & Fall of Operation Igneous
  • Vehicle Taking – Quantity not Quality
  • Vehicle Theft: 30 years of Complacency
  • The Devalued Crime Report
  • Vehicle Theft Surge Demands Police Action on Crime Report Disclosures
  • FoIA – Staffordshire Police are not the worst offenders
  • Vehicle Repatriation
  • Crime Number Devaluation
  • Manufacturers Cause Vehicle Thefts …
  • PNC LoS Report Weeding
  • Staff-less-shire Police Report Disclosures
  • W. Mercia Police – RTC Report Disclosures
  • Delaying Finalisation of Insurance Claims (for some)
  • Policing (or not?) Vehicle Theft
  • Fraud Not Theft … face the facts!
  • Cloned Plates: Register of Keepers – Lacking Integrity?
  • Police Theft Report Disclosure
  • Headlamp Dazzle & Eye-Snatching
  • Scrap ‘six-week weeding’ of stolen vehicle VRMs
  • Police Vehicle Theft Reports – A Lack Of Understanding And Standardisation

Legal Disclaimer
The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the content, laws and regulations change frequently, and the application of legal principles varies based on specific circumstances.

No Legal Advice
Nothing on this website constitutes legal, financial, or professional advice. You should not rely on the information provided here as a substitute for seeking qualified legal counsel. If you require legal advice or guidance, we strongly recommend consulting a licensed solicitor or legal professional.

No Liability
We make every effort to keep the information up to date and accurate, but we do not guarantee the completeness, correctness, or applicability of any content. We accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or reliance placed on the information contained within this site.

External Links & Third-Party Content
Any external links or references provided are for convenience only and do not constitute endorsement. We are not responsible for the accuracy, legality, or content of any external sites or third-party materials linked from this website.

User Responsibility
It is the responsibility of all users to verify the accuracy and relevance of any information before relying upon it. If you have a legal issue, you should seek advice from a qualified professional relevant to your situation.

By using this website, you acknowledge and agree to this disclaimer. If you do not agree, you should discontinue use of the site immediately.

© 2026 Car Crime U.K. | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme