29/08/2025 to the NVCRP & Merseyside police
I am beginning to sound like a stuck record insofar as this issue is concerned. However, the ICO having today supported my activity, negating the unnecessarily aggressive stance to the help I proffered, it appears safe for me to return to the issue – the constabulary (about which I have written to the ICO below) have 30 days to provide information I await from them. I intend to place the DN online shortly with a post/article.
- [NVCRP] – to whom should I direct a request for weeding to cease?
Causing a stolen vehicle not to appear as such on the PNC LoS register, if the vehicle or parts are stumbled upon by police, a PNC check will return ‘clear’. Weeding is also skewing recovery figures. Additionally, I understand the PNC bureau notifications are an administrative burden – this alone should be sufficient to warrant attention.
I have copied this to [name redacted] @ Merseyside police mindful [the NPCC vehicle lead] is about to retire.
- [Merseyside Police} – could someone locate the emails I sent [NPCC vehicle crime lead] and provide the associated information* – the notes relating to the consideration of my submissions and to whom they were forwarded. At the very least the consideration/enquiries/review gave to an ‘all chiefs’ circular 07/11/2024 which I am not seeking, I possess this.
I remain hopeful that the other issues/suggestions I have raised will not meet with similar resistance.
02/12/2025 to the NVCRP:
Is there any update on this?
A recidivist constabulary, who had apparently put a ‘fix’ in place is yet again the subject of my attention for failing to CONFIRM a LoS marker … just how many stolen vehicles are not recorded on PNC and at the DVLA as such due to this unnecessary, archaic process? At any one time, the recovery rate is being skewed by the conduct.
Will the new LEDS system that will incorporate/replace the PNC, due out in March 2026, eliminate the possibility of this occurring?
02/12/2025 from the NVCRP:
I have spoken to several individuals regarding the points you raised in your email in August regarding the PNC weeding process for LoS vehicles. As a result of this the following actions have been undertaken –
- A reminder is being sent to all forces, via the DCC who has responsibility for the PNC portfolio, instructing forces to confirm LoS within, ideally the golden hour, but nonetheless within 72hours.
- This will ensure the vehicle stays confirmed LoS for 12 months before being reviewed.
- If for any reason the force doesn’t respond to that review, it continues on for another 12 months in any event.
- The NPCC Operational vehicle crime lead will brief the National lead and arrange for a communication to be circulated regarding this on Chiefsnet to ensure awareness is raised regarding this issue
I can’t comment on whether, or why, some reports may be slipping through the process net, but I hope the above helps to improve the situation
02/12/2025 to the NVCRP:
Thank you … do you know if LEDS will address weeding, negate it?
I appreciate that the issue has been revisited and that further communications will be circulated nationally. However, I am concerned the proposed measures largely mirror the same reminders and guidance issued last year, which unfortunately did not prevent further LoS markers from falling away. The most recent case we encountered demonstrates that the problem persists despite previous communications and despite certain forces having already acknowledged the need to confirm LoS records immediately at creation.
This reinforces the underlying point:
- any process that relies on manual intervention, reminders, or individual operator attention will remain vulnerable to human error, staff turnover, and capacity pressures.
- the outcome is predictable and recurring: LoS records are being weeded after 6 weeks and vehicles continue to disappear from both PNC and DVLA systems while still stolen.
This presents several operational and public-confidence risks:
- When a LoS report falls away, the VRM is no longer treated as stolen on PNC or DVLA, giving the appearance of recovery when none has occurred.
- We are often the first to identify the issue, and must then advise victims to contact their force, causing avoidable distress and reputational damage to the constabulary concerned.
- The DVLA confirms that they cannot readily identify when a LoS notification was received, meaning any activity during the “unconfirmed” window is not visible externally.
- In the most recent example, multiple opportunities to confirm the LoS within 48 hours, at the two-week reminder, and again prior to weeding were missed. The force later attributed this to the departure of an individual operator — which, if correct, highlights the fragility of a process dependent on individual staff members rather than system design – though the casual approach to formal access to PNC is troubling
Given these ongoing failures, and the fact that at least one force has already adopted the practice of confirming LoS at point of creation, it appears increasingly clear that the confirmation requirement — and the resulting Day-43 weeding mechanism — is unnecessary. Its removal would eliminate the administrative burden caused by reminders, remove the risk of inadvertent deletion, and materially improve the integrity of national LoS data.
I am preparing communications for insurers and victims advising them to re-check VRMs on Day 43 due to the current unreliability of LoS persistence. I would greatly prefer not to take this step, but accuracy is essential. I am also drafting a standard request to both police forces and the DVLA seeking the date each LoS report was confirmed and any DVLA activity between the date of theft and the date confirmation reached their systems.
The situation we observe through the relatively small number of thefts we manage suggests that the cases we identify are likely only a fraction of the wider problem.
I am grateful for the engagement on this issue and hopeful that the above detail assists in understanding why a systemic correction — rather than continued reliance on reminders — is necessary. I would be pleased to support further discussion on solutions that remove the need for confirmation altogether.
Currently the integrity of the DVLA and PNC databases are undermined. But this is the case with much of what is reported … no one can make informed comment and this needs to be addressed.
The NVCRP contact, ‘working outside of the police’ were unable to assist further.