4. FoIA ‘Value & Serious Purpose’

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.

Purpose and Public Interest

Vehicle theft remains a significant and growing aspect of UK criminality, with wide-reaching implications for victims, insurers, law enforcement, and policymakers. The public concern is real and measurable:

Vehicle thefts rose by approximately 30% between 2022 and 2023 (Home Office Crime Stats, 2024).
The DVLA and ONS have reported persistent growth into 2024, with media citing figures as high as seven cars stolen every hour.
The economic loss, distress to victims, and potential national security implications (due to fraud, cloning, or export) amplify the need for scrutiny.

Despite the scale and seriousness of the issue, vehicle theft is underreported and underinvestigated. The data I have requested helps shine a light on operational responses, recovery outcomes, and classification practices — specifically, whether vehicles are listed on the PNC as stolen, how fraud/theft distinctions are drawn, and what recovery success looks like in real terms.

The ICO is clear:

“A request which may be irritating or burdensome to deal with is not necessarily vexatious if it has a serious purpose and raises matters of public interest.”
ICO Guidance on Vexatious Requests – Section 14(1)

The public, victims, vehicle owners, insurers… and the police have a legitimate interest in:

How vehicles are recorded as lost/stolen on the PNC;
Whether vehicles were in fact stolen or obtained fraudulently;
The classification, investigation, and recovery of these vehicles.
The conduct of the police

The refusal avoids answering those concerns altogether.

The question of how a specialist police unit operates is self-evidently of interest and has a value or serious purpose, more so given the current concerns raised about the extent of vehicle theft, the methodologies, insurance costs, highlighting particularly vulnerable vehicles and the blame attached to manufacturers

The Legal Standard: Serious Purpose and Public Interest

Section 14(1) FOIA allows refusal only where a request is “vexatious.” However, as the ICO makes clear:

“A request which may be irritating or burdensome to deal with is not necessarily vexatious if it has a serious purpose and raises matters of public interest.”
— ICO Guidance: Dealing with Vexatious Requests – Section 14(1)

The Upper Tribunal in Dransfield v ICO and Devon County Council ([2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)) established that:

“Section 14 must not be used lightly. The right to request information is a cornerstone of transparency in public life.”

In Dransfield, Judge Wikeley held:

“The test of vexatiousness requires a holistic assessment of all the circumstances, including the seriousness of the purpose, the value of the request, and the impact on the public authority.”

And later, the Court of Appeal confirmed:

“The starting point is whether there is any reasonable foundation for thinking that the information sought would be of value to the requester, the public, or a section of the public.”
— Dransfield & Anor v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 454

Evident Public Interest

The request directly aligns with the objectives of transparency, police accountability, and evidence-led policy. It seeks standardised, quantitative data on vehicle theft classification and recovery – data which has already been disclosed by individual police forces e.g., Essex and is clearly retrievable, held in a readily retrievable format.

This request supports the four public interest limbs recognised by the ICO:

Holding authorities to account for performance — i.e., how police forces and NaVCIS respond to vehicle theft.
Understanding decisions — i.e., why some vehicles are classed as “stolen” while others as “fraudulently obtained.”
Transparency — i.e., about the collaboration between public and private agencies in enforcement.
Ensuring justice — i.e., clarity in recovery and prosecution data.

Supported by the NPCC Itself

The NPCC’s own leadership recognises vehicle crime as a serious and complex challenge. Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Sims (NPCC Vehicle Crime Lead) stated:

“Vehicle crime has a significant impact on victims, organisations and the UK economy. The increasingly organised nature of vehicle crime demands a continued effective response from police, manufacturers, the Home Office, and stakeholders.”

The National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership (NVCRP), formed in 2024, is a high-profile, government-supported initiative that further demonstrates that this issue is not marginal or obscure, but one at the centre of UK crime reduction efforts.

Commentary and Evidence of Seriousness

According to academic commentary on the use of Section 14:

“Authorities should not confuse persistent with vexatious. Where a pattern of requests points to deep public interest concern — such as abuse of power, operational deficiencies, or neglected crimes — engagement, not avoidance, is warranted.”
— Coppel, Freedom of Information Handbook (2017)

Furthermore, vehicle crime remains a national priority, addressed in:

The Home Office Policing Strategy 2024–2025
Multiple Select Committee Reports
And the newly amended Crime and Policing Bill, where vehicle theft is given specific attention.

Conclusion

This is not a scattergun or speculative request. It is:

Data-specific
Minimally burdensome
Previously answered by other constabularies
Of clear public interest and policy relevance

The ICO states that:

“A public authority should avoid assuming that a request is without value simply because it is not immediately self-evident or because it touches on sensitive subjects.”

In sum, this request has a serious purpose, raises legitimate concerns, and directly supports the public’s right to understand how national policing is addressing a growing crime trend.

Refusing it under Section 14(1), without demonstrating grossly oppressive burden or malicious intent, risks undermining FOIA’s core values of openness, accountability, and public trust.

NEXT PAGE – Lack of Action/Information about vehicle theft

The Request & Refusal:

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