Skip to content

Car Crime U.K.

who knows, who cares?

Menu
  • Events Timeline
  • Stolen Vehicle Info’
    • ‘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%
  • Collision & Crime Reports
    • Police Theft Reports
    • Police Collision Reports
    • Police Disclosure Delays
  • Resources
    • Your Vehicle Theft Insurance Claim
    • Police Contact Emails
  • News
  • Links
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
  • Contact
Menu

NPCC FoIA Follow-Up

An attempt to avoid the Internal Review process, to represent the request in a manner that did not cause any issues:

21/04/2025 to the NPCC:

I apologise for any offence caused. I would be grateful if you could consider my request again. I understand a Response can be amended.

Please also note my typographical error, the periods should be 01/01/2023 to 31/12/2023 and 01/01/2024 to 31/12/2024 to enable year-to-year comparison.

If the request will not be reconsidered, I would be grateful if you could provide the reasoning behind your assessment that this was a vexatious request. My intention was not to cause disruption or annoyance, and seeing the reasoning applied would help me to understand how to reframe my request accordingly or, if necessary, present an Internal Review Request.

As you may be aware, the ICO advises that “public authorities must keep in mind that meeting their underlying commitment to transparency and openness may involve absorbing a certain level of disruption and annoyance”.

Additionally, the ICO advise that best practice for authorities applying this exemption is to suggest ways in which a request may be made less burdensome (see https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio…).

I would be grateful if you could review whether this is the correct exemption to have been applied: would section 12, ‘Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit’ have been more appropriate? If so, please reassess my request accordingly.

The ICO advise that best practice for authorities applying this exemption is to suggest ways in which a request may be made less burdensome (see https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio…). I would be grateful if you would make such suggestions so that I can reframe my request.

May I also take this opportunity to assure you that my request was not intended to be vexatious.

As to purpose, please see https://carcrime.uk/2504040-navcis-pnc-l…. You may also wish to consider a more recent Tribunal decision relating to vexatious – https://carcrime.uk/wp-content/uploads/2…


23/04/2025, the NPCC responded:

Thanks for your email below. Please accept this email as confirmation of your request for an Internal Review.

Internal Review 2266/2025 (of 2233/2025)

Your request will be considered in accordance with the legislation and you should receive a response within 20 working days (20/05/2025). In the unlikely event that this is not possible, you will be provided with a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.


23/04/2025, in response to the NPCC:

Please note my comment:

‘My intention was not to cause disruption or annoyance, and seeing the reasoning applied would help me to understand how to reframe my request accordingly or, if necessary, present an Internal Review Request.’

I had hoped to be able to reframe the request with your assistance and obtain the information.

In the event this is not possible, any further reasoning would be appreciated to enable me to issue my formal IR


Recent Posts:

  • 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
  • Crime Number Devaluation
  • Manufacturers Cause Vehicle Thefts …
  • PNC LoS Report Weeding
  • Staff-less-shire Police Report Disclosures
  • W. Mercia Police – RTC Report Disclosures
  • Delaying Finalisation of Insurance Claims (for some)
  • Policing (or not?) Vehicle Theft
  • Fraud Not Theft … face the facts!
  • Cloned Plates: Register of Keepers – Lacking Integrity?
  • Police Theft Report Disclosure
  • Headlamp Dazzle & Eye-Snatching
  • Scrap ‘six-week weeding’ of stolen vehicle VRMs
  • Police Vehicle Theft Reports – A Lack Of Understanding And Standardisation

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.

© 2025 Car Crime U.K. | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme