It is likely every police officer is motivated by a desire to assist victims and ensure lawful outcomes, particularly in helping move from the point of crime to compensation. However, over time, the process has become more restrictive, not necessarily by the officers’ choice. Concerns about disclosing information have been tied to potential breaches of data protection laws, such as the Data Protection Act of 1984. This has created a cautious environment, where “no release” is often the default, seemingly leaving victims and insurers with limited options for recourse.
In these circumstances, it is understandable that insurers and their representatives rarely contact the officer in charge (OiC) directly. With the shift to telephone notifications and the risk of informal disclosure of personal information, the need for formal procedures and Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) has become clear. These formal processes are designed to safeguard all parties, though there may be questions about whether some MoUs have become overly complicated. The history of the MoU can be found here.
In the 1970s, the standard police response to an insurer’s request for information was often “no comment.” This response could vary depending on who answered the phone and their particular approach. By the year 2000, some constabularies began to see the benefits of working with insurers to assist victims and prevent fraud.
In 2002, the first MoU between the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) was introduced. While this framework had its limitations, it established a process that allowed constabularies to charge a fee for information disclosure, with the expectation that it would be reviewed after two years. However, the review only occurred twelve years later.
The latest version of the MoU, introduced in 2022, the procedural purpose is set out within this as:
- 2.2.2 To offer support to victims of crime within our communities by expediting the finalisation of their insurance claim.
However, this MoU is perceived by some as more complex and restrictive, potentially contributing to the challenges constabularies face in handling these requests. At a time when vehicle theft is increasing, vehicle values are rising, and more recoveries involve only parts of the vehicle, this complexity is seen by some as an additional burden for victims. Rather than assisting victims whose vehicles cannot be recovered intact, the process for information disclosure has become more difficult to navigate, leading to further frustration
Some constabularies have adopted a selective approach, applying the MoU only to victims insured with ABI members. This has led to concerns about fairness, as victims who are insured with non-ABI members may not receive the same level of cooperation. A UK constabulary written to about this has yet to respond! The email can be read here.
Given that vehicle owners are legally required to insure their vehicles if they are on the road, it is possible that they may choose insurers based on cost, coverage preferences, or other factors. However, if they do not select an ABI member insurer, they may find themselves excluded from the benefits of police assistance in the event of a claim.
- Note: The NPCC ABI guidance is merely a formalisation of the process, supported by the relevant aspects of the data protection act, which includes assurances concerning how ABI members maintain security and meet the standards expected of membership. Any company that is not associated with ABI, i.e. not a member, will not come under their structure. To clarify non-ABI members do not have to operate under the ABI scheme. However this does not prevent non-ABI members from data sharing. When requesting information from police forces, the company simply needs to describe the reasons and purposes for the request for information, including any legal proceedings considerations if appropriate. Any receiving police force can then assess and decide on whether or not to release the information – in every case it is a local risk decision by the receiving force to consider a voluntary disclosure, there no statutory requirements to disclose.
Do the police believe non-ABI member insurers or their representatives treat data with any less regard? Many Loss Adjusters will work for ABI and non-ABI members. Is it considered they treat data differently subject to who their insurer client is? The insurance industry is highly regulated and the DPA (for example) applies to all.
Yet the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) stance is the basis for the ABI agreement is that they have a standards-based approach to membership. Therefore, the police can be assured that members of the ABI maintain appropriate privacy and protection standards and have confidence in their management of the information shared. Apparently, non-ABI members have to be considered on a case-by-case basis by each force as there is no consistency with third parties.
There was a suggestion the police should mirror the ABI agreement for Lloyds members, this operates in a very similar way, and was considered possibly the next logical extension of the agreement. But with so many brokers and independent insurance companies the police appear to have concluded they are unlikely to find common ground surrounding the privacy and protection assurances they require, and are therefore bound to continue considering these requests independently. Even with the ABI agreement in place Forces are still making voluntary disclosures under the act – the ABI agreement provides no explicit gateway, just a formal process with assurance.
In 2023, the NPCC had no current plans to develop overarching guidance for disclosures to individual independent parties. They advised this would be too complex due to the huge disparity between independent companies without the assurance structure of the ABI/Lloyds membership. The NPCC explained, ultimately, even if the NPCC introduces ‘guidance’ all forces are autonomous and controllers in their own right so it will always come down to the individual force making the disclosure on a case-by-case basis.
But some constabularies are not considering non-ABI requests at all; they are simply refusing them. Derbyshire, for example, appeared to apply the mid 2023 issue with RTC reports to crime report disclosures writing 29/06/2023::
- Unfortunately due to recent change in the NPCC policy and legislation* that is currently under national review, we are only able to disclose limited information on crimes going forward. For civil claims we would require a court order to be in place for us to disclose said details to yourself.
*There had been no change in the legislation. The ‘policy’ change referred to was actually ‘guidance’ and related to disclosure following an issue relating to s170 RTA – read more here.
As vehicle theft increases and more victims emerge, the reduced level of cooperation and assistance may seem counterproductive. With greater demand for police services, some find the decision to limit disclosure and delay compensation difficult to understand. Additionally, the fees charged for police reports are considered high by some. For instance, the cost of a report may be £158.90[1] for a document that is only a few pages long. To provide context, the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) sets a limit of £450 for requests that require up to 18 hours of work, at an hourly rate of £25. In contrast, the time needed to process a crime report request is unlikely to exceed one or two hours
It is important to acknowledge that a request for a crime report is not simply a matter of asking and receiving; it involves review and decision-making. While it is easy to highlight the system’s shortcomings or criticize responses, it is equally important to recognize the challenges constabularies face in balancing transparency with privacy. Some constabularies are open to engagement, while others may adopt a more guarded approach, possibly due to concerns about data protection. In some cases, this caution is seen as an attempt to justify the protection of data, which some may feel is their primary responsibility.
Ultimately, the goal should be to establish a system that benefits all parties involved: the police, victims, insurers, and their representatives. A more streamlined and cooperative process is in everyone’s best interest. It is time to consider revisiting the MoU and exploring simpler, more effective solutions that ensure security and provide an additional source of revenue for constabularies.
[1] Page 33 – https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/publications-log/finance/2024/npcc-guidelines-on-charging-for-police-services-april-2024-v0.4.pdf
[2] Deckard – Blade Runner 1982
09/2024
