Skip to content
Car Crime U.K.

Car Crime U.K.

Understanding Vehicle Theft, Fraud and Identity

Menu
  • Vehicle Crime
    • ‘Form A Squad’ – Ineffective Action
      • The Vehicle Crime Task Force (VCT) – 2019
      • 2022 to 2023 National Vehicle Crime Working Group
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found in the U.K.
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found Abroad
    • OPERATION IGNEOUS – reducing reported car theft by 30%
    • Title Law
  • LoS* Data
  • Guidance / Help
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
    • Resources
      • Your Vehicle Theft Insurance Claim
      • Police Contact Emails
    • Links
  • Police Reports
    • Police Theft Reports
    • Police Collision Reports
    • Police Disclosure Delays
  • News
  • Policy & Research
  • Articles & Info’
    • The Freedom of Information Act
  • Contact
Menu

NPCC FoI Process

2-8-2300 2025 03 NPCC FoI Process V.1 10062025

NPCC FOI PROCESS

  1. Freedom of Information request received from applicant, case opened on cycfreedom and individual folder opened within NPCC FOI Outlook. Both files contain applicants name for identification purposes and a case reference number is generated.
  2. An acknowledgement email is sent to the applicant containing the case reference number and stored within the Outlook folder.
  3. Research completed on the request subject and where required the relevant portfolio contacted. If stakeholder engagement is required the reference number is used to identify the request. The applicant’s name is not required and therefore not provided to any 3rd party.

o This is articulated within the College of Policing APP which states “The identity of the applicant should not be shared with information owners, or third party stakeholders, unless there is a policing purpose in doing so, for example intelligence gathering.”

  1. Each request for information is included in a case management log, this is circulated to members within NPCC Media Team. Once the case has been finalised it is removed from the list.

o Providing the applicants name allows the NPCC to identify requestors making requests to other areas of NPCC and ensures a joined up approach.

  1. The applicant is provided with a response to their request for information and the case is closed.
  2. The records deletion process for emails is as per the national guidance NPCC Review Retention and Disposal Schedule 2020 Version 4 FINAL.pdf
  3. Cases on cycfreedom are kept for a minimum of 2 years to accommodate the length of time it takes for ICO complaints and tribunals to come to a conclusion.
  4. Deletion of records to start the first week of January in each rolling year.

NPFDU CRU PROCESS

  1. Referral form received from a force, either as a mandatory referral or because the force require advice/stakeholder consultation.
  2. Referral form contains personal details of the applicant: a minimum of the applicant’s name, on occasion an email address or postal address (if supplied). Forces should only complete the details necessary for the CRU to log the request and be able to locate it.

o Providing the applicants name allows the CRU to check if other forces have also sent the request for advice. It allows checks for duplication, repeat requests and vexatious considerations. The email or postal address allows checks when considering applicants working in concert with each other, as would the organisation name.

  1. Once a referral form is received the details from the form are input into cycfreedom (records management system) and a reference number generated. An acknowledgement email is sent to all forces who have the same request, stating this CRU reference number, and includes the applicant’s surname name only.
    The emailed referral form is then deleted from the inbox.
    o Each force generates their own reference numbers, therefore they will not be able to locate their request using the CRU reference number. The name is included in the acknowledgement email for the purposes of identification.
  2. If stakeholder engagement is required the CRU reference number is used to identify the request. The applicant’s name is not required and therefore not provided to any 3rd party.

o This is articulated within the College of Policing APP which states “The identity of the applicant should not be shared with information owners, or third party stakeholders, unless there is a policing purpose in doing so, for example intelligence gathering.”

  1. When CRU respond to forces providing guidance, the advice contains the CRU reference number and the applicants surname name to enable forces to locate each request.

o The name of the applicant is only used as a reference, advice is provided on an “applicant blind” basis. The name is only used in correspondence where proportionate and necessary.

  1. As per point 4, when consultation is required the applicant’s personal details are not referenced to ensure that the consultation process is ‘applicant blind’. The data included in this consultation process is therefore not considered the personal data of the applicant.
  2. Should a case progress to ICO Appeal or Tribunal stage, then applicant details are shared as at point 5, for the purposes of case retrieval.
  3. Cases requiring consultation at bi-monthly stakeholder meetings will include the applicants name on the circulation log.
    o Providing the applicants name allows stakeholders to identify requestors making requests across government and the need to ensure a joined up approach to safeguard national security
  4. Once the case is closed on cycfreedom and advice has been provided to forces, the associated correspondence is deleted from CRU email folders in line with national guidance NPCC Review Retention and Disposal Schedule 2020 Version 4 FINAL.pdf
  5. Cases on cycfreedom are kept for a minimum of 4 years to accommodate the length of time it takes for ICO complaints and tribunals to come to a conclusion.
  6. Deletion of records to start the first week of January in each rolling year.

NPCC Manual of Guidance Freedom of Information Act (2000)

2_9_2300 2025 04 NPCC Manual Of Guidance V.8.1 January 2025 10062025Download

Recent Posts:

  • Inside the NPCC’s FoI Referral Unit
  • 13. What Better Practice Would Look Like
  • Stolen in Britain, Sold Abroad
  • 12. The Low Cost Check That May Save £1,000’s
  • 11. Good Faith Is Not Enough
  • 10. The Power Imbalance
  • Collaboration or Endorsement? A Closer Look at NVCRP Engagement
  • 9. Trackers Do More Than Recover Cars
  • 8. The Theft to Recovery Timeline
  • 7. Investigation – Insurers vs. Police
  • 6. The Police (Property) Act:
  • 5. Moving the Vehicle Along – Disposal
  • Policy Question: Is Automated Weeding Necessary?
  • 4. Police Powers to Seize Do Not Decide Ownership
  • FOI Update: “Not Held” and the Question of Process
  • 3. Who Helps The Innocent?
  • Remote Technology and Stolen Vehicles
  • 2. The Innocent Purchaser
  • The ICO – running out of time?
  • 1. A Police Crime Report Is Not a Title Decision
  • The Problem With Crime Numbers:
  • When Recorded Theft Is Not Believed
  • NaVCIS Funding: Still No Specifics
  • Agreed Police disclosure procedures not followed
  • £50 for a Police Report Update?
  • Section 184 Data Protection Act 2018
  • Keyless Taking or Key Questions?
  • When ‘Sale or Return’ Goes Wrong
  • BBC Crimewatch ‘Car Cloning’
  • Keyless Vehicle Theft:
  • Accusations of Criminality
  • Thefts Down – Except for Newer Cars!
  • Increase Pre-Crush Retention Period to 28 days?
  • Reducing Vehicle Theft by up to 30%
  • ‘The Others’ … are you among them?
  • Vehicle Abandonments Raise Questions Over Theft Claims
  • The State of Vehicle Taking in the UK: A Crisis of Enforcement, Not Engineering
  • Keystone Krooks – but £1.4 million stolen!
  • 2024 Vehicle Theft – how well (or otherwise) did your constabulary perform?
  • Vehicle Crime. Is Police Language Bluring Facts?
  • Superficial Approach to Vehicle Taking Overlooked Organised Crime
  • Keyless Vehicle Taking – Really?
  • Accuracy & Consistency Required
  • Do we need new legislation?
  • A System Built on Blind Faith? The Flaws in Police Information Dissemination
  • Which? … What?
  • The Rise & Fall of Operation Igneous
  • Vehicle Taking – Quantity not Quality
  • Vehicle Theft: 30 years of Complacency
  • The Devalued Crime Report
  • Vehicle Theft Surge Demands Police Action on Crime Report Disclosures
  • FoIA – Staffordshire Police are not the worst offenders
  • Vehicle Repatriation

Legal Disclaimer
The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the content, laws and regulations change frequently, and the application of legal principles varies based on specific circumstances.

No Legal Advice
Nothing on this website constitutes legal, financial, or professional advice. You should not rely on the information provided here as a substitute for seeking qualified legal counsel. If you require legal advice or guidance, we strongly recommend consulting a licensed solicitor or legal professional.

No Liability
We make every effort to keep the information up to date and accurate, but we do not guarantee the completeness, correctness, or applicability of any content. We accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or reliance placed on the information contained within this site.

External Links & Third-Party Content
Any external links or references provided are for convenience only and do not constitute endorsement. We are not responsible for the accuracy, legality, or content of any external sites or third-party materials linked from this website.

User Responsibility
It is the responsibility of all users to verify the accuracy and relevance of any information before relying upon it. If you have a legal issue, you should seek advice from a qualified professional relevant to your situation.

By using this website, you acknowledge and agree to this disclaimer. If you do not agree, you should discontinue use of the site immediately.

© 2026 Car Crime U.K. | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme