4.5 The PNC – a Blunt Tool?

Following a request made of the NPCC, FOI Ref: 2233/2025, which was refused citing s.14 – vexatious, the below and associated links are submitted to support an Internal Review request.

Grounds for Internal Review – Serious Purpose and Misunderstanding between Theft and Fraud

One of the key motivations underpinning my FoIA request is a growing concern that a lack of distinction between theft and fraud, particularly in the context of vehicle crime, is leading to misunderstanding* of the Police National Computer (PNC) markers – specifically “Lost or Stolen” (LoS) designations – and this has potential to result in miscarriages of justice, improper police action, and reputational harm to UK policing.

*The request is, in part, designed to ascertain just how flexible the PNC is and how it is utilised. ‘Misuse’ may not be an appropriate description; it may simply be that the PNC provides little means by which to differentiate ‘lost’ from ‘stolen’, additionally, that a vehicle may have been given up by a victim. In my experience, offences involving fraudulent taking of a vehicle often result in innocent purchasers being treated unnecessarily harshly.

1. Public Misunderstanding and Legal Distinctions Matter

There is a considerable legal and operational difference between a vehicle being stolen (theft) under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 and a vehicle obtained by fraud, e.g. via deception or false representation, under the Fraud Act 2006. The legal consequences for third parties, such as innocent purchasers or finance holders, differ significantly, particularly concerning title under the nemo dat quod non habet principle (one cannot give what one does not have).

This difference is well-documented in legal literature:

“Where goods are obtained by fraud, the title may pass subject to later rescission, whereas in theft, no title passes at all.”
— Bennion, Bailey & Norbury on Statutory Interpretation, LexisNexis

Failing to distinguish between these offences – particularly when used in the national police databases, can compromise the clarity of action for officers on the ground. It raises the risk that individuals in possession of such vehicles may be treated as criminal suspects when in fact they may be lawful possessors in civil dispute scenarios or simply ‘innocent purchasers’ who could otherwise quickly be identified as such.

2. NaVCIS, Transparency, and the Problem of Classification

The activities of NaVCIS (National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service) appear focused predominantly on fraud-related acquisitions of vehicles, yet their operational records – particularly LoS entries submitted to the PNC and reflected in DVLA notifications – do not clearly distinguish the nature of the taking. This raises several concerns:

How are officers instructed to engage with vehicles recorded as LoS by NaVCIS?
Are annotations present within the PNC to differentiate theft from fraud?
Do such records include explanatory free-text?
Is there procedural guidance for dealing with vehicles, taken by FRAUD, in possession of third parties such as innocent purchasers?

If a vehicle is wrongly classified or inadequately explained in police systems, the person in possession may face unjustified seizure, detention, or reputational damage, while police time is wasted and public confidence eroded. The ICO’s own guidance on vexatious requests encourages public authorities to weigh requests that “a raise serious purpose or public interest,” even where they may be burdensome.

ICO Vexatious Requests Guidance:
“A request which may be irritating or burdensome to deal with is not necessarily vexatious if it has a serious purpose and raises matters of public interest.”
— ICO guidance, Section 14(1) FOIA

3. Insurance & Risk

Insurance may help to demonstrate the variance in approach between theft and fraud. Policies typically cover theft under “Third Party, Fire & Theft” (TPFT), but fraudulent acquisition or civil title disputes are often excluded.

There exists a possibility, incorrectly assigning a theft classification may result in improper claim settlements or invalid claims if the insurer disputes the facts upon recovery.

Without clarity and oversight, particularly from NaVCIS as a uniquely funded and partially industry-aligned unit, the lines between civil, criminal, and administrative responses become worryingly blurred.

4. Public Interest Justification

There is a strong public interest in understanding:

The use and integrity of PNC LoS markers
The transparency of NaVCIS in differentiating between theft and fraud
The treatment of third parties in possession of such vehicles
How this affects innocent motorists, insurers, police officers, and broader criminal justice policy

This is not speculative. It is grounded in contemporary policing challenges, references real-life consequences, and stems from an observable lack of transparency which the FOIA is expressly designed to mitigate.

Upper Tribunal (Dransfield):
“Does the request have a value or serious purpose in terms of the objective public interest in the information sought?”
— [Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)]

Conclusion

My request aims to clarify an area that affects thousands of UK motorists and to prompt transparency and consistency in law enforcement record-keeping. It is made in good faith, based on reasonable public concern and previous disclosure failures. It bears all the hallmarks of a serious purpose, raises significant public interest, and cannot reasonably be characterised as vexatious under Section 14(1).

NEXT PAGE – NaVCIS funding

The Request & Refusal:

The Internal Review (IR) submissions are provided on the associated pages: