5. FoIA & ‘Motive’ - 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.

I understand that the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) may be relying, in part, on assumptions about motive to justify its refusal of my request under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I write to address this directly and constructively.

Motive as a Relevant Factor – But Not a Presumption of Vexatiousness

The Upper Tribunal in Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon CC [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) stated:

“The motive of the requester may well be a relevant and indeed significant factor in assessing whether the request itself is vexatious.”

While FOIA is both “motive blind” and “applicant blind,” the Tribunal rightly observed that a holistic assessment of the context and purpose of the request is vital. However, that does not mean public authorities are entitled to speculate about a requester’s motives or act upon assumptions.

If motive is to be taken into account, it should be:

Considered objectively,
Assessed in light of any clarification offered,
And not presumed where no misconduct has been shown.

To date, I have received no enquiry from the NPCC about the rationale for this particular request, despite its claimed similarity to others. I therefore ask directly:

What did the NPCC believe my motive to be?
If this cannot be answered, on what basis was any conclusion drawn? My motive is not cited in the NPCC’s response.

Legitimate Public Interest Behind the Request

As outlined in Dransfield (para 38), public value is often “bound up to some degree with the question of the requester’s motive”, and the existence of value or serious purpose should be a core consideration. FOIA is rooted in the principle of transparency and public oversight. Assumptions about requester intent must not override this right without supporting evidence.

My motive in this case is:

To assess and clarify the practices and performance of NaVCIS,
To understand how stolen vehicle markers are recorded and maintained,
To explore the wider issue of public-private partnerships in policing, and
To contribute to ongoing transparency in the consdieration and handling of vehicle theft.

The motivation is investigative, transparent, and relevant to the public.

I previously submitted a report to the 2019 Vehicle Crime Taskforce. Despite wide circulation (Home Office, WMP, WMP&CC), no copy of this report can now be found. I’ve made follow-up FOIA requests to understand what became of my evidence. The absence of records, meeting notes, or outcomes raises significant concerns about record-keeping and engagement with the public.

Far from being unreasonably persistent, my actions reflect:

A desire to engage responsibly with law enforcement,
A wish to avoid speculation or misrepresentation,
And a need to protect the integrity of both the Authority and myself.

Absence of Pre-Refusal Dialogue

Had the NPCC engaged prior to applying Section 14 – for example, by asking for clarification or discussing my intent – I would have been more than willing to assist. This omission, in my view, weakens the proportionality of invoking Section 14.

Even where the motive might be unclear, Dransfield cautions:

“Authorities should be wary of jumping to conclusions about there being a lack of value or serious purpose simply because it is not immediately self-evident.”

To what conclusion did the NPCC jump – it is not evident from their stance; the citing of the s.14 exemption?

Constitutional Importance and High Threshold

As Arden LJ made clear in Dransfield v IC & Devon CC [2015] EWCA Civ 454:

“Vexatiousness primarily involves making a request which has no reasonable foundation… Parliament has chosen a strong word which means that the hurdle of satisfying it is a high one.”

My request is based on:

Data analysis of vehicle recovery statistics,
Patterns regarding theft vs. fraud classification,
Potential discrepancies in public-private engagement, and
NaVCIS’s distinct treatment of cases involving industry funding.

These are not personal grievances or speculative fishing exercises. They are rooted in a genuine effort to understand national policing developments that impact the public – particularly vehicle crime victims.

Conclusion

Motive is only relevant to the extent that it helps contextualise the request. If not properly investigated or clarified with the requester, it cannot be relied on as a basis to refuse under Section 14.

If, as your staff previously suggested, the NPCC values transparency and effective policing communication, I trust this explanation of motive will be considered as part of any internal review.

On motive, a Tribunal explains (Dransfield)

“34…the motive of the requester may well be a relevant and indeed significant factor in assessing whether the request itself is vexatious.

The FOIA mantra is that the Act is both “motive blind” and “applicant blind”. ….., the proper application of section 14 cannot sidestep the question of the underlying rationale or justification for the request.

What may seem an entirely reasonable and benign request may be found to be vexatious in the wider context of the course of dealings between the individual and the relevant public authority. Thus vexatiousness may be found where an original and entirely reasonable request leads on to a series of further requests on allied topics, where such subsequent requests become increasingly distant from the requester’s starting point.”

“35…it is important to bear in mind that the right to information under FOIA is a significant but not an overriding right in a modern democratic society. As has already been noted, it is a right that is qualified or circumscribed in various ways. Those restrictions reflect other countervailing public interests, including the importance of an efficient system of public administration. Thus section 14 serves the legitimate public interest in public authorities not being exposed to irresponsible use of FOIA, especially by repeat requesters whose inquiries may represent an undue and disproportionate burden on scarce public resources.”

Dransfield continues:

“38…usually bound up to some degree with the question of the requester’s motive is the inherent value of the request. Does the request have a value or serious purpose in terms of the objective public interest in the information sought?

… the weight to be attached to that value or serious purpose may diminish over time.

… a lack of apparent objective value cannot alone provide a basis for refusal under section 14, unless there are other factors present which raise the question of vexatiousness.

In any case, given that the legislative policy is one of openness, public authorities should be wary of jumping to conclusions about there being a lack of any value or serious purpose behind a request simply because it is not immediately self-evident.”

The ICO states that making a FOIA request is an important right and so engaging section 14(1) FOIA is a high hurdle to satisfy and Arden LJ in the Court of Appeal in Dransfield & Anor v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 454 (14 May 2015) held:-

“68…I consider that the emphasis should be on an objective standard and that the starting point is that vexatiousness primarily involves making a request which has no reasonable foundation, that is, no reasonable foundation for thinking that the information sought would be of value to the requester, or to the public or any section of the public. Parliament has chosen a strong word which therefore means that the hurdle of satisfying it is a high one, and that is consistent with the constitutional nature of the right.”

Value to the Requester,

The NPCC’s position regarding the value of the requested information remains unclear. While the term ‘value’ is referenced four times in the response as a relevant criterion, it is never meaningfully addressed. Instead, the discussion swiftly shifts to focus solely on the burden the request allegedly imposes.

This omission is significant. Having raised ‘value’ as a key consideration, the NPCC fails to evaluate or quantify it – suggesting either an oversight or an unwillingness to acknowledge the likely significance of the material.

One might reasonably infer that the value is, in fact, self-evident. Its inclusion may have served to pad the response or lend the appearance of balance, yet the absence of any substantive engagement with the concept suggests that the NPCC recognises its importance but is reluctant to confront it – perhaps because it would strengthen the case for disclosure.

Motive Examples

22/04/2025, I asked the NPCC to reconsider its stance. When doing so, in an attempt to drive home the ‘motive’ aspect, mindful it appeared to be a constituent of ‘vexatious’ the NPCC had side-stepped, I wrote as follows, citing 8 issues arising:

LoS – Lost or Stolen
PNC – Police National Computer
VRM – Vehicle Registration Mark

A requester is not required to provide a motive for the request. However, toward the end of January 2025, vehicle theft statistics for 2023 and 2024 had been received and were analysed. Unlike many that seek vehicle theft numbers alone, the information acquired extended to:

date of theft (month)
constabulary
date of recovery
recovery condition – if deemed a total loss

Constabularies were doing well if they recovered 40% of stolen vehicles. Many were faring worse. NaVCIS, the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service, which explains ‘bridging the gap between policing and industry’, was achieving a much higher recovery rate. This raised a few issues, some of which the above request was designed to address …

1. Is NaVCIS investigating ‘STOLEN’ vehicles or those taken by FRAUD – should the NaVCIS vehicles be included in STOLEN statistics?
2. Were NaVCIS placing all those VRMs in which they have an interest on the PNC LoS register?
3. Is a PNC LoS entry annotated to explain to any officer encountering the VRM that the vehicle had been taken by FRAUD, as opposed to THEFT – there are potential title argument differences
4. Were online references to NaVCIS being associated with ‘theft by fraud’ offences misleading – there is no such offence.
5. NaVCIS had explained that they were no cost to the public purse – they were funded by private industry. But placing LoS markers to the PNC would surely involve others who stumbled across the vehicles
6. The NaVCIS model appears to be resulting in greater recoveries – should this approach be extended to more general policing or other areas of concern, for example, the taking of Rental Vehicles, that NaVCIS appears reluctant to assist without payment.
7. How does the funding information/model compare with the number of complaints NaVCIS receives (vehicles reported to them as having been taken)
8. What is the extent of the FLA issue such that NaVCIS is required, and in turn, could this be applied to other areas of taking allegations?

The existence of this website, the posts/pages and the linked comments provide further evidence of ‘motive’.

Regarding value &/or serious purpose, while the above hopefully addresses both, further commentary on both aspects is set out here.

NEXT PAGE – FoIA & ‘Burden’

The Request & Refusal:

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