NPCC 031/2025 Funding, Governance & MoU related to NaVCIS

Email: npcc.foi.request@npfdu.police.uk

02/05/2025

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NUMBER 031/2025

Thank you for your request for information regarding Funding, Governance & Mou related to NaVCIS; which has now been considered.

Applicant Question:

Thank you for the information provided.

  1. To what does ‘BBV’ refer – I assume a value but I am unfamiliar with the abbreviation.

I am struggling to understand the response in relation to my knowledge and experience, albeit somewhat historical:

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?

Ports

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?

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  • Please provide the information held about this offer and when it ceased, was withdrawn.

ANPR

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.

NPCC Response:

Your request has been aggregated with 421/2024, 422/2025, and 386/2024 for cost purposes.

The NPCC does hold information captured by your request.  ‘BBV’ refers to ‘Bottom Book Value’.

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.

The NPCC does not hold a record captured by part three of your request.  There was no 5% ‘bounty’ at the ports in 2024.

The NPCC does not hold a record captured by part four of your request.

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.

Annex A

  • Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the NPCC, when refusing to provide
    information by way of exemption in question and (c) states why the exemption applies. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a refusal notice to those aspects of your request.  
  • Legislation – Section 16
  • It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.