29/12/2025 an FoIA request of the Home Office:
PNC VRM LoS Weeding
I have previously asked about weeding alerts issued in respect of not CONFIRMED LoS markers against a VRM on PNC. You have responded file:///C:/Users/pswift/Downloads/FOI2023-04138%20-%20P.%20Swift%20-%20Response.pdf ‘not held’ in relation to the weeding notifications and about the process:
‘As the Home Office acts as a processor in relation to vehicle data on the PNC, any
information we hold in relation to question 4 is held on behalf of the police forces that use
the system and therefore does not fall within the scope of the FOI Act. Given the subject
matter of your request, the National Police Chiefs’ Council may be able to assist you.
Contact details can be found on the NPCC website at https://www.npcc.police.uk’
However, I understand:
The UK Police National Computer (PNC) Bureau is overseen by the Home Office. It is maintained by the Criminal Records Office (ACRO) under the governance of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC). The NPCC has created governance structures to support the PNC’s management and oversight, ensuring compliance with data protection legislation and other relevant regulations.
i am seeking the latest weeding notification sent to each constabulary; simply the number of weeding alerts that:
- at 2 weeks ‘x’ number per constabulary had yet to be confirmed and
- at 6 weeks ‘y’ number, still not confirmed, would be weeded from the PNC
Given the Home Office apparently oversees the PNC Bureau,
- Who specifically issues the above notifications, which Authroity?
- What information do you possess about ‘weeding’ (PNC VRM LoS) since 01/01/2024
30/12/2025 Home Office acknowledgement:
This has been assigned to a caseworker (case ref FOI2025/17986). We will aim to send you a full response by 28th January 2026 which is twenty working days from the date we received your request.
26/01/2026 Home Office response:
To clarify, we do not have a UK Police National Computer Bureau.
In relation to your questions 1, 2 and 4, the Home Office does not hold the information you have requested.
With regards to question 3, the Home Office does send a weekly report to forces, but the data contained in the report is not stored.
26/01/2026 request for an Internal Review
I am seeking an Internal Review.
I am concerned that the response provided is materially unhelpful and relies on semantics rather than substance.
- PNC oversight and responsibility
The response states that the Home Office does not have a “UK Police National Computer Bureau”. This appears to be a semantic objection rather than a substantive answer.
It is widely stated in public-facing material that the Home Office oversees the governance of the Police National Computer (PNC), with operational management delivered via ACRO under the governance framework established by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. If the Home Office disputes this characterisation, it is necessary, particularly in a public-interest request, that it clearly explains:
- which department, unit, or authority within government has oversight responsibility for the PNC;
- under whose statutory or administrative jurisdiction the PNC operates; and
- the role played by the Home Office in governance, assurance, or reporting, if not “oversight” in name.
Absent this explanation, the response does not meaningfully address the question asked.
- Weekly reports that are “not stored”
The Home Office confirms that it sends a weekly report to police forces, yet states that the data contained in the report is “not stored”.
This raises obvious questions which the response does not address:
- how such a report is generated if the underlying data is not retained, even transiently;
- which system or dataset is queried to produce the report;
- which Home Office directorate, unit, or function generates and disseminates it; and
- whether the report is generated automatically or manually.
It is difficult to reconcile the assertion that a report is regularly generated and sent, but that no record, output, or retained data exists for FOIA purposes.
Oversight/monitoring of the generated reports, given this arrangement, appear impossible.
- Information “not held” vs information generated
If the Home Office is able to generate and disseminate a weekly report to forces, it follows that the information is held, at least momentarily, by or on behalf of the department. FOIA case law and ICO guidance make clear that information does not cease to be “held” simply because it is transient or routinely deleted.
If the Home Office’s position is that the information is held on behalf of police forces or another authority, this should be stated explicitly, with clarity as to:
- on whose behalf the information is held;
- why section 3(2)(a) FOIA does not apply; and
- why no advice or assistance was offered to redirect the request appropriately.
•
- Failure to provide advice and assistance (section 16 FOIA)
The response does not appear to comply with the statutory duty under section 16 FOIA. In particular, no assistance is offered to explain:
- how the weekly report is transmitted (system, frequency, format);
- which bodies receive it;
- whether an aggregated or redacted version could be provided; or
- which authority would be best placed to answer questions 1, 2, and 4 if the Home Office maintains that it does not hold the information.
Simply stating “not held” without this context is not sufficient, particularly given the acknowledged existence of a weekly reporting process.
- Public-interest context
The request concerns the automatic “weeding” of unconfirmed Lost-or-Stolen (LoS) vehicle markers from the PNC, an issue with clear implications for crime recording accuracy, victim protection, and public confidence in national policing data. In that context, a narrowly framed or semantic response risks undermining transparency rather than supporting it.
I would therefore invite the Home Office to reconsider its response and either:
- provide a substantive explanation addressing the points above; or
- clearly identify the authority that holds responsibility for generating, governing, and receiving these reports, so that a properly directed request can be made.
It may assist to clarify that I am not seeking vehicle-level data, nor any personal data. I am simply seeking to understand the scale and outcome of the PNC “weeding” process in aggregate.
Specifically, I am seeking confirmation of the number of ‘weed’ alerts issued to each constabulary (or other LoS-registering organisation) at the relevant stages of the process (e.g. initial reminder and subsequent pre-weeding notification), and the number of instances in which the LoS marker ultimately falls away following the applicable weeding threshold (circa day 43).
In particular, it would assist to understand, in aggregate:
- the number of cases in which a weeded LoS marker is subsequently reinstated; and
- the number of cases in which the LoS marker remains deleted following weeding.
I am keen to avoid engaging section 12 of the FOIA. Given that the Home Office has confirmed that weekly reports are generated and sent to forces, it would be helpful to understand whether the above information is held in a readily retrievable or reportable format, even if only as management information.
If the Home Office maintains that this information is not held, I would be grateful for assistance under section 16 FOIA in explaining:
- how the weekly reports are generated and from what data source;
- which organisations receive them; and
- which authority would be best placed to provide the aggregate information sought.
This request is made in the public interest, given concerns that a significant number of stolen vehicles may cease to be recorded as such following the weeding process, with implications for crime statistics, victim outcomes, and public confidence in national policing data.
27/01/2026 Hoem Office acknowledgement of the IR request
Thank you for contacting the Home Office with your request for an internal review.
This has been assigned to a caseworker (case ref IR2026/01379). We will aim to send you a full response by 23rd February 2026 which is twenty working days from the date we received your request.
20/04/2026 – chase IR
Subject: Internal Review IR2026/01379 – Status and Further Context
Dear Home Office,
I write in respect of my request for an Internal Review dated 26 January 2026 (reference IR2026/01379), for which I have not yet received a response.
I note that the stated timeframe for completion was 23 February 2026. This has now passed, and I would be grateful if you could confirm:
- the current status of the Internal Review; and
- the date by which I can expect to receive a substantive response.
- what has given rise to the delay
Further context (non-material to scope)
Without altering the scope of my original request or Internal Review, I wish to draw your attention to information now confirmed by a police force in response to a related request.
The MPS have confirmed, Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/26/050893, that:
- Home Office PNC Services generate and issue a weekly weeding/reminder report (DAF VE602 / VE602J) to police forces; and
- that this report includes statistical outputs relating to the number of vehicle records weeded, including distinctions between confirmed and unconfirmed reports.
This appears directly relevant to the matters raised in my Internal Review, in particular:
- the assertion that information is “not held”; and
- the explanation that, although a weekly report is generated and distributed, the underlying data is not retained.
The existence of a structured, recurring report containing statistical outputs suggests that information of the type requested may be held, even if only transiently or in aggregated form.
Clarification of expectation
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not seeking to expand or amend my request. However, I would ask that the Internal Review fully consider:
- the nature and content of the weekly VE602/VE602J report;
- how such reports are generated; and
- whether the statistical outputs they contain fall within the scope of information held for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Given the elapsed time since the Internal Review was requested, I would appreciate confirmation of when a response will now be provided.
24/04/2026 – to the ICO – IC-506920-K9D6
14/05/2026 – from the ICO
Your complaint is now eligible for investigation. We will allocate it to a case officer as soon as we can. The focus of their investigation will be to determine whether the public authority handled your request in accordance with the legislation.
We are accepting the case for investigation without an internal review as it has already been more than 40 working days since you requested it. If the review is provided before this case is assigned to a case officer and you don’t let us know that you are unhappy with it, we will close the case.
If you don’t accept the review outcome, please send us a copy of the outcome and outline your specific grounds of complaint. We will then proceed with your case accordingly.
The ICO is receiving record volumes of complaints and is currently assigning cases for investigation approximately seven months after their date of initial receipt. We are working hard to reduce this timeframe.
16/06/2026 the Home Office Direct Communications Unit wrote separately about my correspondence:
DECS Reference: TRO/1462823/26
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.
But the above is at odds with my understanding, the FoIA response and a 25/06/2026 letter received from the National Audit Office.
30/06/2026 – further Home Office chase & observations
Dear Home Office,
I write again regarding Internal Review IR2026/01379, requested on 26 January 2026.
The Home Office acknowledged the internal review on 27 January 2026 and stated that a full response would be aimed for by 23 February 2026. No internal review response has been provided.
I chased the matter on 20 April 2026 and again on 24 April 2026. Each time, I received only an acknowledgement that the correspondence had been forwarded to the case officer. I remain without:
1. the internal review outcome;
2. any revised target date;
3. any explanation for the continuing delay;
4. any indication of whether the additional context provided has been considered.
The delay is now excessive.
The internal review concerns a matter of clear public interest: the generation, issue, retention and governance of Home Office / PNC weeding or reminder reports relating to unconfirmed Lost/Stolen vehicle markers.
In its original response, the Home Office stated:
* that it does not have a “UK Police National Computer Bureau”;
* that it does not hold the information requested in questions 1, 2 and 4; but
* that, in relation to question 3, “the Home Office does send a weekly report to forces, but the data contained in the report is not stored.”
That position requires proper reconsideration.
The internal review specifically challenged how a structured weekly report can be generated and sent to police forces, yet the information within it is said not to be held, retained, retrievable or explainable for FOIA purposes.
I subsequently provided further context, without expanding the scope of the request, namely that the Metropolitan Police Service had confirmed in FOI reference **01/FOI/26/050893** that **Home Office PNC Services generate and issue a weekly weeding / reminder report, DAF VE602 / VE602J, to police forces**, and that this report includes statistical outputs relating to the number of vehicle records weeded, including distinctions between confirmed and unconfirmed reports.
That information appears directly relevant to the Home Office’s original “not held” position.
I now ask that the overdue internal review expressly addresses:
1. whether Home Office PNC Services generate and issue DAF VE602 / VE602J reports;
2. what the weekly report is called, how it is generated, and which system produces it;
3. which Home Office unit, directorate, contractor or system function generates and distributes it;
4. which police forces or policing bodies receive it;
5. whether the report includes counts or statistical outputs relating to unconfirmed Lost/Stolen vehicle markers;
6. whether it includes counts or statistical outputs relating to vehicle records pending deletion, already weeded, confirmed, unconfirmed, or reinstated;
7. whether any report output, audit log, transmission log, template, job record, metadata, covering email or system record is retained;
8. if the data is said not to be stored, when and how it is deleted;
9. whether the Home Office’s position is that the information is not held at all, or that it is held only on behalf of police forces;
10. if the latter, which authority is said to hold the information for FOIA purposes;
11. why section 16 FOIA advice and assistance was not provided in the original response;
12. whether the Home Office has reconsidered its position in light of the MPS confirmation concerning DAF VE602 / VE602J.
The internal review should also address the wider inconsistency now apparent from subsequent correspondence.
The National Audit Office has advised me, in correspondence dated 25 June 2026, that its team met a Home Office official to discuss the issue. The NAO records that the Home Office official confirmed the relevant PNC Lost/Stolen process: an LoS marker is initially unconfirmed, only confirmed LoS markers are included in the report available to DVLA, and if the report remains unconfirmed after six weeks it is removed from PNC through “weeding”.
The NAO further records that the Home Office official confirmed that this process causes the discrepancy between police and DVLA databases, and that the Home Office is in discussions with police forces about whether the LoS confirmation step should be removed from LEDS functionality.
That information appears materially relevant to this internal review. It suggests that the Home Office has knowledge of, and some involvement in, the PNC Lost/Stolen confirmation / weeding process, the resulting data discrepancy, and potential remedial action through LEDS.
Accordingly, the internal review should not be confined to a narrow or semantic distinction about whether the Home Office has a body called the “UK Police National Computer Bureau”. It should address the substance of the request: what information the Home Office holds, generates, transmits, controls, processes, or can retrieve concerning PNC VRM Lost/Stolen weeding reports and related statistical outputs.
Please now provide the internal review response without further delay.
If the Home Office is unable to provide the internal review immediately, please explain:
1. why the review remains outstanding more than two months after the stated target date;
2. who is responsible for completing it;
3. what further work remains to be done;
4. the date by which the internal review will be issued.
I am copying this update to the ICO under case reference IC-506920-K9D6.