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 Contacts
  • News
  • Interesting & Reference
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
  • Contact
Menu

Police Collision Reports

The ability to obtain a police report following an RTC (road traffic collision) is a post-code lottery. At the time of writing, 01/2025, Staffordshire police, for example, are struggling … to disclose anything since July 2023!

Obtaining police road traffic collision (RTC) reports was relatively straightforward; pay a fee (often large) and information about the incident would be disclosed. The Data Protection Act (DPA) dates from 1984 … for about 30 years the RTC report disclosure operated without issue. But then, a disclosure directly to a member of the public, not to an insurer, caused a problem.

Disclosing to an individual was surely considered more risky, and questionable. The outcome; a ‘baby out with the bathwater’ situation arose within some constabularies; nothing would be disclosed.

The event:

In brief, following an allegation of damage being caused to a vehicle, Sussex police provided the aggrieved with details of the alleged perpetrator. The aggrieved party appears to have provided the information to another who confronted the suspect (data subject) who then complained to the ICO about the disclosure of their personal details.

Many may reasonably believe s170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is engaged … the ICO’s approach is detailed in the exchanges we obtained and gave rise to the NPC involvement and new ‘guidance’.

Treating the disclosure of a police report to an insurer or their representatives as a disclosure to a third-party, an individual, appears odd. For example, it appears an insurer could argue their request (and the disclosure) falls to ‘Law enforcement purposes as defined in Part 3 Chapter 1 section 31 Of DPA 18’:

“…the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences ….”

RTC’s are well known to be associated with concoction and/or exaggeration and staging both of which fall to a criminal offence; fraud.

The continuity of the Sussex police event, as known, is as follows. The linked pages contain information scanned from disclosures and the subject of OCR. Inaccuracies may be present and therefore should not be relied upon – the original exchange disclosure from the ICO can therefore be found below.

28/02/2022 – The Information Commissioner’s Office presents a complaint to Sussex Police and

03/03/2022 – Sussex police respond

15/03/2022 – The ICO’s reply and

18/03/2022 – Sussex police respond citing s170 of the RTA 1988 and their Road Traffic Collisions policy

29/03/2022 – The ICO responds and

14/04/2022 – Sussex police explain the disclosure. The constabulary attaches a substantial amount of policy information which can be read here.

08/07/2022 – The ICO responded to Sussex police and

22/07/2022 – Sussex Police respond, including a review and the constabularies considered explanations; why they considered they had complied with the law.

07/11/2022 – the ICO’s decision – letter to Sussex Police:

  • It is the ICO’s view that [redacted] has not identified a valid lawful basis for disclosing Mr [redacted] personal data.

30/05/2023 – NPCC letter to all Chief Constables

It appears the issue gave rise to the following:

07/2023 – NPCC guidance on police disclosure following road traffic collisions


ICO disclosure of Sussex police exchanges:

in scope info-RedactedDownload

Recent Posts:

  • Crime Reports – Copies of ‘Consent’
  • 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