4.2. NaVCIS & Vehicle Taking – Theft, Fraud or Both?

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.

Clarifying the Serious Purpose of the Request – NaVCIS and the Potential Misclassification of Vehicle Crime

The public interest in vehicle crime statistics has grown substantially due to the sharp rise in reported incidents. It appears there is confusion over theft classification, and an under-explored role of the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (NaVCIS). As the ICO has consistently advised, “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 FOI Guidance on Section 14).

1. The Confusion Between Theft and Fraud

There is growing concern that certain crimes are being misrepresented or misunderstood in both public discourse and data collection. The term “theft by fraud,” frequently cited in media and institutional commentary, is legally ambiguous. Under the Theft Act 1968 and the Fraud Act 2006, these are separate statutory offences with distinct legal thresholds. No offence of “theft by fraud” exists in law. Therefore, referencing or recording NaVCIS crimes/complaints under “theft” may mislead analysts, policy makers, and the public.

This is not a semantic quibble – it affects how resources are allocated, how insurance claims are processed, and how the effectiveness of law enforcement is judged.

2. The Role of NaVCIS and Its Disproportionate Influence on Statistics

NaVCIS has a unique position, operating at the nexus of public law enforcement and private enterprise. Their recovery rate (60.22% in 2024), based on 651 VRMs recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) LoS register, far exceeds that of territorial police forces (average 42.25% recovery from 100,585 records at DVLA in the same year). This disparity raises essential questions:

Are NaVCIS-entered vehicles properly classified as stolen or should some be deemed “obtained fraudulently”?
How are these VRMs affecting national theft statistics?
What methodology accounts for their higher recovery rate – and why isn’t it standard practice across all forces?

For example, if, as suspected, NaVCIS contributions inflate “theft” figures by incorporating fraudulently obtained vehicles, this could have significant policy implications. It may lead to misleading national crime trends, public misperception, and inappropriate strategic responses by law enforcement and commercial entities.

3. Precedents and Scholarly Support

In Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), Judge Wikeley noted that serious purpose and public value remain central to determining whether a request is vexatious. Later, in the Court of Appeal (Dransfield & Anor v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 454), Arden LJ stressed:

“The starting point is that vexatiousness primarily involves making a request which has no reasonable foundation… the hurdle of satisfying it is a high one, consistent with the constitutional nature of the right.”

My request clearly meets that threshold – it is rational, narrowly tailored, rooted in factual analysis, and directed toward enhancing the accuracy and accountability of crime reporting mechanisms. It is supported by prior NPCC statements (e.g., the 2019 Vehicle Crime Taskforce:

“Better information about the methods used to commit vehicle theft… is key to understanding the threat”)

and ongoing government action, such as the 2024 Crime and Policing Bill, which proposes to ban security bypass tools – albeit, once again, law enforcement appears to be slow to react; the incidence of ‘security bypass’ is said to be reducing! .

4. A Systemic Issue Deserving Transparency

With vehicle crime affecting millions of UK residents, and with public services intertwined with private actors like NaVCIS, my request aims to ensure:

transparency in classification and data recording
clarity about what constitutes theft vs. fraud
an informed discussion on how public-private policing models impact justice and accuracy.

These are not trivial or speculative queries – they relate to the core democratic values of transparency, accountability, and lawful classification of criminal activity. The apparent reluctance to disclose basic data only amplifies the public’s right to scrutinise.

NEXT PAGE – Policing-Plus

The Request & Refusal:

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