Memorandum of Understanding

I was present at the 2002 ABI/ACPO presentation of the MoU, notes of which can be read here. I had expressed concerns about police conduct and 20 years ago suggested the far simpler process of releasing information: ‘consent’ as reported in the Insurance Times. In a recent LinkedIn post, reiterated once again in the Insurance Times, constabularies were reminded consent remains a simple, legal means of expediting matters. Yet, to date (01/2025), only one police service has adopted the process. Others appear more interested in finding ways not to engage consent … with one aggressively so. Why?

Page 6 (of 37) the current, 2022, MoU states, under ‘purpose’:

2.2.2 To offer support to victims of crime within our communities by expediting the finalisation of their insurance claim

The NPCC wrote:

“To clarify non-ABI members do not have to operate under the ABI scheme.
However, this does not prevent non-ABI members from data sharing.
When requesting information from police forces, the company simply needs to describe the reasons and purposes for the request.”

The 2022 MoU was to be the subject of review, the document containing the statement:

‘Review is an essential part of any guidance. The aim is to ensure that the guidance is achieving its original purpose and the actual process of sharing is operationally smooth and lawful. The NPCC lead for information will lead the review in conjunction with the partner to ensure both Parties are satisfied with the guidance.
7.2 Initial review to be conducted within 6 months of publication;
7.3 Then every 2 years as a minimum requirement or such other period as agreed by The Parties’

3 years on, no review has occurred.

The MoU is convoluted, unnecessarily so, a backward step (to that of 2014) and adds delays to a claim. It is an unnecessary hindrance. That it is complicated is evidenced by the conduct of the constabularies engaging it; they do so differently!

It is known that the MoU is restrictive. It applies to ABI members only, it excludes non-members and some constabularies offer little or no assistance to non-ABI members who also have grounds to check a claim, whose insureds are members of communities who also expect support (from the police) to expedite the finalisation of their insurance claim. After all, if a constabulary has failed to locate their stolen vehicle intact (as it was at the time of theft), as is increasingly the case, they will turn to their insurer. They will not expect to be the victim of criminals and a constabulary.

As conveyed to constabularies, ‘consent‘ is a simple, legal means of expediting matters. To date (01/2025), only one police service has adopted the process.

05/2024 a constabulary was approached about this:

My understanding when it comes to the disclosure of information by police, the principles of fairness, equality, and transparency are paramount. Treating requests for disclosure differently based on whether the requesters are members of a group or not could undermine these principles and lead to a variety of negative consequences.

The principle of equality before the law is a fundamental aspect of democratic societies. According to this principle, all individuals and groups should be treated equally by law enforcement agencies, without discrimination based on group membership. This ensures that no individual or group receives preferential or prejudicial treatment, maintaining the integrity and fairness of law enforcement processes.

Transparency in the operations of the police fosters trust between the community and law enforcement. If police responses to information disclosure requests vary depending on the requester’s group affiliation, it could lead to perceptions of bias or hidden agendas. This could erode public trust, which is crucial for effective policing and community cooperation.

Law enforcement agencies must be accountable to the public they serve. Consistent standards in handling disclosure requests help ensure that police actions can be effectively scrutinized. Inconsistencies in how information is disclosed based on group membership could complicate accountability measures, as it would be more difficult to assess and compare actions taken in similar situations.

Differentiating how information is disclosed to groups versus individuals may violate legal standards concerning competition, discrimination and privacy. Ethically, it is important for police to uphold the rights of all citizens equally. Arbitrary distinctions based on group affiliation could potentially lead to legal challenges and a loss of public confidence in the ethical standards of the police.

Effective law enforcement depends on the cooperation and participation of the public. If certain groups believe they are being treated unfairly in terms of information disclosure, they may be less likely to cooperate with the police. This could hinder investigations and community policing efforts, ultimately affecting overall public safety.

It is therefore crucial for police to treat all requests for disclosure of information with the same criteria, regardless of the requester’s group affiliation.

In this instance, favour is being shown to a group; ABI members. This has a direct effect upon their customers, members of the public who the police serve. In effect, [redacted] police are saying ‘unless you insure with an ABI member, in the event of a claim (for example theft), we will not assist you or your insurer’. In a time of increased car theft, reduced recovery and seemingly recovery of components i.e. damaged vehicles, the public’s reliance upon insurers in increased. The police being unable to ensure a vehicle stolen is returned to the victim promptly in ‘as was’ condition means the victims look to their insurance company.

Aside of monopoly considerations, [constabulary] favouring certain insurers, there appears to be a lack of consideration for the victims – some of whom may have been forced not to utilise an ABI member. This may be because of price, the type of vehicle they own (the press is alive with reports about insurers withdrawing from JLR cover) or the individuals circumstances/antecedents i.e. their occupation or convictions (as examples) may preclude them from utilising a ‘mainstream’ insurer. [redacted] police are prejudicing the position of these people.

Please ensure the conduct is investigated and stopped without further delay; that all are treated fairly.

Yours is not a common approach to disclosure making it all the more concerning.

The NPCC ABI guidance is merely a formalisation of the process, supported by the relevant aspects of the data protection act, which includes assurances concerning how ABI members maintain security and meet the standards expected of membership. We and our clients satisfy these too.

Any company that is not associated with ABI, i.e. not a member, will not come under their structure. However this does not prevent non-ABI members from data sharing. When requesting information from police forces, the company simply needs to describe the reasons and purposes for the request for information, including any legal proceedings considerations if appropriate. Any receiving police force can then assess and decide on whether or not to release the information – in every case it is a local risk decision by the receiving force to consider a voluntary disclosure, there no statutory requirements to disclose.
Why has [constabulary] applied a blanket block on disclosure to non-ABI members only?