The Home Office & Misdirected emails

Home Office Correspondence

Contents

16/06/2026 The Home Office has misdirected emails

DECS Reference: TRO/1462823/26

16 June 2026

Thank you for your email of 9 February to the Home Office regarding a number of issues arising from the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (NaVCIS). We are very sorry for the delay in replying.

Unfortunately, some of your emails were misdirected among several generic Home Office inboxes while we were separately responding to your Freedom of Information requests.

As a result, they were not actioned as promptly as they should have been. We fully appreciate the frustration this may have caused and apologise for the inconvenience.

Your outstanding pieces correspondence have now been identified and passed to the appropriate team for consideration. We are reviewing the issues you have raised and will respond as soon as possible.

We would also note that a number of the issues raised in your correspondence fall outside our remit and engage responsibilities held by other bodies. In particular:

  • Operational policing matters, including questions relating to: – the use and management of Police National Computer (PNC) lost/stolen markers; – the automated deletion (“weeding”) of such records; – the completeness and handling of police-held stolen vehicle data; and – any associated operational assurance activity;
    sit with the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).
  • FOI requests relating to these matters can be directed to NPCC at:
    npcc.foi.request@npfdu.police.uk where NPCC co-ordinate responses with relevant
    policing leads and teams, including NaVCIS.
    Freedom of Information Act policy and legislation, including proposals to extend the
    scope of the Act to additional bodies such as NaVCIS or the Finance & Leasing
    Association, sit with Cabinet Office. If you wish to pursue these points, you may
    wish to contact the Cabinet Office FOI policy team at: foi-team@cabinetoffice.gov.uk

The Home Office will consider and respond to those elements of your correspondence
which fall within its remit.

Thank you for your patience, and please accept our apologies once again for the delay.

20/07/2026 to the H.O chasing an update

To: ‘Public Enquiries (CD)’ <Public.Enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk>
Subject: FW: Reply to your query – Home Office DECS Reference: TRO/1462823/26

I write further to your letter dated 16 June 2026, reference TRO/1462823/26.

You advised that some of my emails had been misdirected among several generic Home Office inboxes, that my outstanding correspondence had subsequently been identified and passed to the appropriate team, and that the Home Office would respond “as soon as possible”.

More than four weeks have now passed without any further communication, substantive response or indication of when I may expect one.

The expression “as soon as possible”, without any timescale or subsequent update, is neither sufficiently precise nor helpful, particularly where the delay arose from the Home Office’s own handling of my correspondence. By the date of your letter, the Home Office had apparently identified the affected correspondence and referred it to the appropriate team. It should therefore now be possible to provide a clear account of the position.

Please confirm:

  1. Which of my emails or other items of correspondence were misdirected, identifying each by date, subject matter and reference number where applicable.
  2. Which generic Home Office inboxes were involved.
  3. When the misdirection of each item was identified.
  4. What happened to each item during the period in which it was not being actioned.
  5. Which “outstanding pieces of correspondence” had been identified by the date of your letter.
  6. To which team, unit or official each matter was passed – their email contact details & reference(s)
  7. Which matters remain under consideration by the Home Office.
  8. The present position in respect of each outstanding matter.
  9. The date by which I will receive a substantive response to each matter.

I would also be grateful for an explanation as to why no update has been provided during the four weeks since your letter, notwithstanding the acknowledged history of delay and the assurance that the matters had been identified and were under review.

A further open-ended assurance that a response will be provided “as soon as possible” would not adequately address these questions. Please provide a substantive response, including clear timescales, within 10 working days.