4.1. Lack of Action/Information/Attention to vehicle theft

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.

Supporting Argument: Serious Purpose – The Need for Transparency and Intelligence in Addressing Vehicle Crime

Vehicle crime in the UK is a growing concern, increasingly marked by organised methods, low recovery rates, and a significant public and economic impact. My request seeks to understand how NaVCIS (National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service) data influences national vehicle crime statistics and whether transparency and accountability are being sufficiently upheld.

A 2019 note from the Vehicle Crime Taskforce (VCT) explicitly recognised the importance of information:

“Better information about the methods used to commit vehicle theft, including how often those methods are used in practice, is key to understanding the threat.”
— Vehicle Crime Taskforce, Meeting Minutes, 2019

Despite this, data about theft methodology appears not to be routinely collected or retained in a retrievable format. There is a heavy reliance on generalised references to “keyless theft” or “security bypass” without rigorous supporting statistics or analysis.

Even the West Midlands Police (WMP), whose crime commissioner was to spearhead the VCT from which the above quote was taken, do not record theft methodology in a readily retrievable format.

This absence of actionable data inhibits policing efforts and skews public understanding.

The NPCC itself announced the formation of the National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership (NVCRP) in 2024, a promising initiative intended to tackle rising vehicle crime. Yet FOIA responses indicate the Partnership has not met or lacks documentation of activity—a stark echo of the 2019 Taskforce, which held just a single meeting in January 2019 and failed to implement its stated goals, which included:

Improving vehicle security standards
Introducing tighter regulations for the salvage industry
Restricting the sale of electronic theft tools

The re-emergence of these same goals in 2024 suggests stagnation, not progress. This historic pattern underlines the public interest in scrutinising such efforts, particularly as the Government continues to legislate on related matters, such as banning “security bypass” tools under the Policing Bill.

Legal and Institutional Support for Serious Purpose

The ICO Guidance on Section 14(1) 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.”

Furthermore, the Upper Tribunal in Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) and Dransfield & Anor v ICO [2015] EWCA Civ 454 reaffirmed that:

Section 14 FOIA must be applied with great care
The purpose and value of a request are central considerations
Vexatiousness involves requests with “no reasonable foundation” — a high bar

Vehicle crime affects millions of UK drivers, and the public is entitled to understand how well their interests are being served. As noted by ACC Jenny Sims, NPCC Vehicle Crime Lead:

“Vehicle crime has a significant impact on victims, organisations and the UK economy… This partnership will enhance information sharing and analysis, build networks to target offenders and coordinate activity to reduce vehicle crime and associated harm.”

My FOIA request serves this very function – seeking clarity about national efforts to address vehicle crime. It is neither excessive nor abusive. It aligns with the democratic values of transparency, accountability, and responsible policing.

To suppress such a request under Section 14 risks reinforcing the perception of inertia and undermining the very objectives the NPCC professes to champion.

NEXT PAGE – NaVCIS – theft or fraud?

The Request & Refusal:

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