A constabulary recently highlighted a recurring challenge faced by many involved in claims resolution:
I understand [company’s] difficulties in gaining access to the information; it may be more appropriate for yourselves and other claims management companies to collectively approach the NPCC to evidence why your business should be included in the ABI MOU.
This issue presents significant obstacles for some claims management entities, which in turn affects those seeking fair and timely claims outcomes.
Road Traffic Collision (RTC) information disclosure, raised in a May 2023 NPCC circular to all chief constables has had varied responses.
Accessing crime reports, however, should not face such consistent obstacles.
While not flawless, the original 2002 MoU has been incrementally restricted, making it increasingly difficult to achieve fair and efficient data sharing. The current version raises questions about fairness and impartiality, especially in terms of equality, transparency, accountability, and the ethical obligations of law enforcement—all of which can be avoided or negated.
Though it is heartening to have my concerns echoed (above) by a police disclosure unit, should we not all unite in advancing fair treatment? It remains unclear why victims of crime should experience different treatment based on their insurer. What, ultimately, is our shared goal?
Consider a typical vehicle theft claim, which often proceeds due to the police not recovering a stolen vehicle in its original state, if at all. By enabling insurers to access necessary data promptly, the process better serves the victim. In this era of rising vehicle theft, with many discovered in parts, both police and insurers face increased pressure.
The NPCC noted MoU members adhere to privacy and data protection standards, which reassures the police of responsible information handling. The guidance is simply a formalization underpinned by data protection legislation, to which we are all subject. Extending similar data-sharing protocols to all insurers remains surprisingly elusive after two years.
While the MoU does not technically prevent data sharing with non-members, its current limitations may call into question its ongoing relevance and utility.
CONSENT as a Path Forward
In an increasingly complex environment, misinterpretations of well-intentioned actions are common, often diverting attention from the primary purpose. My attempts to address this issue have occasionally been met with resistance, underscoring the need for a clear, collaborative solution.
One viable path appears to be by engaging ‘consent’. This is demonstrated by a process we effectively engage with a constabulary and in the stance of another:
If you can provide the written consent of a person who has provided information to the police, we would normally agree to provide that information to you. There may be some limited exceptions, for example, where we consider that providing the information would be likely to prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution.
This approach benefits all parties. The insured is aware the report will be requested, and a police response is awaited. The constabulary, assured by written authorization, can efficiently fulfil the request, thereby reducing administrative burdens and resource expenditure. In this context, whether an entity is a MoU member becomes irrelevant, and concerns over perceived special treatment are eliminated.
A Subject Access Request may be considered ‘super consent’ but is engaging this procedure a step too far? A SAR ‘right of access’ enables someone to obtain a copy of their personal information from an organisation. A response is required within one month and is free.
In conclusion, I welcome a dialogue about implementing these suggested approaches for the collective benefit of police services, insurers, and, above all, the public whom we ultimately seek to assist as evidenced by the hand-holding advice here.