Since the 1960s, the UK’s approach to police disclosure of crime information to insurance companies has evolved significantly due to changes in data protection laws, insurance practices, and broader legal frameworks.
This is not to say change has been for the better. Indeed, despite documented procedures, a wide ranging approach is encountered with victim’s subjected to a constabulary jurisdiction lottery; some have simply closed the door and withhold all, others disclose selectively and, to date, only one has embraced a process that is painless and profitable for all; police, insurer and most importantly … the victim.
Sadly, the latter appears to have bene overlooked by many police ‘services’.
1960s–1980s: Informal Collaboration
In the 1960s and 1970s, police sharing of crime data with insurance companies was largely informal. It often depended on individual police officers’ discretion and relationships with insurance firms, particularly in cases like suspected fraud. Who was contacted at a police station, what side of the bed they got out that morning … could have an effect upon a willingness to speak about an incident.
However, there were no formal mechanisms or clear guidelines to structure these disclosures. In a time of paper reports, a lack of computerisation, recording of phone calls (and social media etc.) and without a Data Protection Act, life was generally more casual.
1984 saw the introduction of the Data Protection Act. Many perceived this as a fraudsters charter; a means by which criminals details and activities would be hidden. Whilst this fear did not establish itself immediately, it appears more recently this is becoming the reality.
It is easier to say ‘no’ to disclosure, to adopt the jobsworth mentality (“more than my job’s worth to give you the personal information mate”) approach, rather than to understand and embrace the Act’s enabling sections. However, disclosure may not simply convey the activities of the victim and/or suspect … it may identify the failings of the data controller.
But the enabling sections, the exemptions to non-disclosure, do not compel release of information.
Bizarrely, the Data Protection Act is now more commonly preventing insurers receiving reasonably required information and harming the prompt progression of a victim’s claim. An example of a recent (2023) detrimental development can be read here.
1990s: Formalization and Legal Protections
By the 1990s, there were growing concerns about data protection. The Data Protection Act 1998 impacted how police handled personal data, including crime information. It required that personal data only be disclosed if there was a legitimate reason … but the sections were not onerous and the enabling sections remained.
Criminal convictions and medical records receive special attention.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 determined how criminal records could be disclosed. Convictions that were “spent” under the Act were no longer required to be disclosed to insurers. The Act presented as offering protection to individuals with older, minor offenses. Over times the conviction history was to be further diluted, convictions would fall away faster, making less relevant, disclosable.
2000s and 2010s: Privacy and Increased Regulation
The Human Rights Act 1998 and later the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2018 imposed stricter data privacy regulations. However, disclosure for insurers was recognised as necessary, reasonable
2002 a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
Data sharing was to be managed through a formal agreement balancing the needs of both law enforcement and data protection laws.
The agreement, between the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) , now the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC), was aired at the ABI’s offices in 2002 and whilst lacking in some respects, open to subjective consideration, it was a start.
With 48 civilian police forces in the UK, understandably there were differences of interpretation and understanding of the process. Disclosure was seldom undertaken by the police officer involved in the initial reporting of the incident rather, the matter was handled by a constabulary’s ‘Information Disclosure Unit’ (or similarly named). The responses varied
Some appeared to believe their role was to withhold information. Others seemed to lack an understanding of fraud and the ability to disclose however, this may have bene linked to the fee paying aspect of the agreement; a standard request for disclose attracted a fee under the MoU, an approach citing and evidencing fraud attracted no charge
2014 MoU
phone reports of crime
deterioration in quality of report
2022 MoU
governed by legal frameworks designed to protect individuals’ privacy, and police disclosures were scrutinized to ensure compliance with both national and European data protection laws.
In addition, the creation of specialized units, such as the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED), enhanced collaboration between the police and insurance industry. This department focuses on tackling insurance fraud while adhering to legal frameworks that protect personal data.
Present Day: Digital Systems and Transparency
Today, police disclosure of information to insurance companies is tightly regulated. Insurers must demonstrate legitimate reasons for requesting information, and disclosures are often related to preventing or investigating fraud
fee paying – incme for constabulary
£150 = 6 hours? Foia comparision.