Skip to content

Car Crime U.K.

Understanding Vehicle Theft

Menu
  • Vehicle Crime
    • ‘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%
    • Title Law
  • LoS* Data
  • Guidance / Help
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
    • Resources
      • Your Vehicle Theft Insurance Claim
      • Police Contact Emails
    • Links
  • Police Reports
    • Police Theft Reports
    • Police Collision Reports
    • Police Disclosure Delays
  • News
  • Policy & Research
  • Articles & Info’
    • The Freedom of Information Act
    • Subject Access Request (SAR)
  • Contact
Menu

Subject Access Request (SAR)

You are entitled to request information held about you from a third party. For example, you may wish to be provided a copy of your crime report to progress an insurance claim following the theft of a vehicle.

You could simply give the party holding the information, for example, a police constabulary, CONSENT to provide the information to another. Or you could provide your insurance company, or their representatives, CONSENT to obtain the information from the constabulary.

However, some police services are reluctant to make such disclosures and would prefer the insurer (or their agent) to use an ‘agreed’ process, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). But this comes with its own problems:

  1. The MoU does not apply to every insurer. Not all insurance companies are treated equally by the police
  2. The MoU does not guarantee the information will be disclosed within a set period
  3. There is a cost. For providing what is often a brief account, with scant information and would take little time to check, redact (if necessary) and disclose, a charge of about £150 can be made by the police

Conversely, a SAR request:

  1. applies to all constabularies, can be utilised by an insured/victim. An insurer can also be given authroity to make a ‘Third Party SAR’; an insured/victim can be authorised to make a SAR on the subject’s (insured’s) behalf
  2. The information is required to be disclsoed within a calendar month, subject to some exemptions
  3. There is no cost.

The issue of TP SAR’s is currently, as of early 2026, with the ICO as Essex constabulary, which charges over £150 per disclosure, has challenged the process.


I should be noted that disclosures can be subject to some difficulties.

For example, if a SAR is made, the constabulary may respond ‘investigation ongoing’. Whilst les slikley with a vehicle theft report as these are often quickly closed with little enquiry undertaken, should this be the response, a new SAR will need to be made, the process recommenced.

The ICO has advised, 05/2026, Case Reference IC-513402-Z3F0:

  • If a constabulary declines to disclose the information for a valid reason i.e. ‘the investigation is ongoing’, that SAR is effectively killed at this stage.
  • The data controller, the constabulary, would be considered to have complied with their obligations since a lawful response had been provided.
  • A new/fresh SAR would need to be submitted upon completion of the investigation in question.  There is no provision within the legislation to compel the data controller to partially comply with a request during an ongoing investigation. 
  • There is no way to avoid submitting a new SAR since the initial SAR, in the eyes of the legislation so to speak,  the initial SAR has received a lawful response and is complete/closed

Recent Posts:

  • NaVCIS – Industry-Funded Enforcement — But How, Exactly?
  • FoIA & AI: Formulating Better Requests, Not More Noise
  • Home Office Records Reveal NaVCIS Was “Working Month to Month”
  • Inside the NPCC’s FoI Referral Unit
  • 13. What Better Practice Would Look Like
  • Stolen in Britain, Sold Abroad
  • 12. The Low Cost Check That May Save £1,000’s
  • 11. Good Faith Is Not Enough
  • 10. The Power Imbalance
  • Collaboration or Endorsement? A Closer Look at NVCRP Engagement
  • 9. Trackers Do More Than Recover Cars
  • 8. The Theft to Recovery Timeline
  • 7. Investigation – Insurers vs. Police
  • 6. The Police (Property) Act:
  • 5. Moving the Vehicle Along – Disposal
  • Policy Question: Is Automated Weeding Necessary?
  • 4. Police Powers to Seize Do Not Decide Ownership
  • FOI Update: “Not Held” and the Question of Process
  • 3. Who Helps The Innocent?
  • Remote Technology and Stolen Vehicles
  • 2. The Innocent Purchaser
  • The ICO – running out of time?
  • 1. A Police Crime Report Is Not a Title Decision
  • The Problem With Crime Numbers:
  • When Recorded Theft Is Not Believed
  • NaVCIS Funding: Still No Specifics
  • Agreed Police disclosure procedures not followed
  • £50 for a Police Report Update?
  • Section 184 Data Protection Act 2018
  • Keyless Taking or Key Questions?
  • When ‘Sale or Return’ Goes Wrong
  • BBC Crimewatch ‘Car Cloning’
  • Keyless Vehicle Theft:
  • Accusations of Criminality
  • 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

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.

© 2026 Car Crime U.K. | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme