An initial approach to NaVCIS to obtain information about their funding over the years resulted in the response:
‘The NPCC does not hold information captured by your request‘.
Specifically, with regard to the 5 aspects raised, the NPCC added (FoIA: 004/2025):
- NaVCIS have no information recorded from 2012 regarding a financial relationship between AVCIS and UK Ports
- NaVCIS have no information recorded regarding monies received for providing ANPR data in 2012
- NaVCIS have no information recorded about the offering of ANPR data for payment or assistance that would be extended in relation to ‘stolen’ vehicles located at ports
- NaVCIS have no information recorded about any such offer being withdrawn.
- There is no record of NaVCIS making ANPR data available to others within the last 5 years.
NaVCIS were asked about their relationship with the Ports (FoIA 422/2024 & 386/2024).
Response:
NaVCIS does hold recorded information captured by your request.
Historically and presently, third Party costs incurred during the seizure, retention and return of these vehicles is levied against insurance companies / owners. These costs include movements of shipping containers, professional unloading / reloading (of unrelated items), subsequent movement of the vehicles to storage, storage of the vehicles, fees from shipping industry for admin functions and demurrage and detention. These costs are invoiced to NaVCIS who in turn invoice them to the insurance / owner in an auditable process. No additional cost is added for any NaVCIS function.
Here is a recent working example:
Two stolen vehicles found in a container. The costs are split equally between the 2 cars – so each insurance invoiced as follows:
- £100 Unload
- £60 Shunts in Felixstowe
- £150 Skip charge
- £500 Transport and Freight Forwarder charge
- £810 Total inc. vat
There may be an additional charge by a third party for the storage of the vehicle, whilst the insurance company/legal owner arrange for their transporters to collect the vehicle. However this is paid directly to the storage company by the insurance company or legal owner
NaVCIS calculates the required budget/funding required for the financial year, then the decision is the FLAs as to how they will recoup the money from their members. They calculate the seizure, referral and % of BBV required to cover the funding, we provide the FLA with all the referral and seizure data for them to calculate this.
In view of this response, the applicant may consider a request to the FLA*.
However, charges this year:
- A referral into NaVCIS = £200
- UK Seizures = £1000 + 8% of BBV variable.
- Overseas seizures = £1500 + 8% of BBV variable.
- Variable % is based upon year to date throughput and agreed budget.
- UK and overseas seizure of shells / heavily damaged / engine only = £500 flat fee.
*possibly – but they are not subject to FoIA.
The NPCC was further asked about the funding of NaVCIS (031/2025 Funding, Governance & MoU related to NaVCIS):
- Information Request: My understanding is that NaVCIS/AVCIS received FLA funding based upon their activities, as a percentage of the values of vehicles recovered. 2014; ‘… it was explained that the FLA funding is not now a fixed fee but based on ‘results’; AVCIS agrees with the FLA a percentage charge based upon their recoveries, currently at 19%. Assuming this to be the case, when did this cease?
Response:
The NPCC does not hold a record captured by part two of your request. No record is held of when the FLA funding formula changed. The NPCC cannot corroborate any information that you refer to as having been ‘explained regarding FLA funding. Therefore, by default, it stands to reason that there is no information captured by part two of your request.
- Information Request: In 2014, a ‘bounty’ of 5% of the value of the vehicle was being sought for vehicle return. It appeared that AVCIS have broken down some barriers with the Ports, established relationships and being ‘police’, were in a good position to reach agreements that would be of possible mutual benefit to insurers. It was explained that in essence the Ports are a ‘law unto themselves’ quite literally; they generally work to maritime legislation and that their ‘police officers’ are glorified security staff. When did this 5% bounty arrangement cease?
Response:
The NPCC does not hold a record captured by part three of your request. There was no 5% ‘bounty’ at the ports in 2024.
- Information Request: Insurers were offered assistance; in return for a payment of £10,000 AVCIS would ensure vehicles at Ports would be recovered. Please provide the information held about this offer and when it ceased, was withdrawn.
Response:
The NPCC does not hold a record captured by part four of your request.
Information Request: Included in the above £10,000 + VAT annual ‘(Ports) charge’ would be access to ANPR data. AVCIS had been exploring the ability to make ANPR data available, considering the agreements that need to be in place. There was currently a pilot with the ABI, that ANPR data was being used / analysed in relation to suspected cash-for-crash claims.
However, it was suggested a more meaningful pilot may occur with the involvement of an insurer; hands-on and prompt application of the data to their claims may result in faster feedback and ‘results’ for case studies. Providing an insurer with the data that could be used immediately would be a better yardstick by which to measure its effectiveness and provide a means by which AVCIS could gauge the benefits of the information and give greater consideration to how this was disseminated. Case studies would assist to identify areas in which the data was used, how it was and could applied effectively and to streamline procedures.
I have yet to be provided any information about his offering. Please provide the information relating to the ABI pilot, the outcome and the offering; payment for ANPR access.
The Home Office have been consulted in relation to this release to insurers and it would appear approval had been obtained.
Response:
The NPCC does not hold a record captured by part five of your request. NaVCIS do not provide ANPR data to anyone. Colleagues are unaware of any conversations taking place between NaVCIS and the Home Office in this regard. NaVCIS has no ANPR agreement with the ABI* therefore no ‘outcome’ and there was no ‘offer of payment’ for ANPR access*.
*The request did not refer to the ABI but rather ‘insurers’ (generally).
Just because there is no agreement with the ABI doe snot mean there was not an offer to insurers – or an insurer.
Indeed, a participant in such a meeting, having organised this between insurer and AVCIS, the sole purpose was to discus the services/benefits available, a fee having been cited.