Vehicle Crime: What Happens to the Information?

10/08/2026

The National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership (NVCRP) recently posted that “Useful intelligence rarely arrives as a complete picture.” Quite right.

Manufacturers, insurers (and their representatives), police, tracking companies, DVLA and others, each hold pieces of the vehicle-crime jigsaw. Sharing them should help create a better national picture.

But after seven years of trying to contribute some of those pieces, I increasingly wonder whether sharing information is really the problem.

What happens when useful information has already been provided?

I have been here before

In March 2019, when a national Vehicle Crime Taskforce (VCT) was being promoted, I submitted a paper that I believed, from my perspective, contained practical vehicle-crime concerns and suggestions. It ultimately went to

None substantively responded. When I later resorted to FoIA to ascertain the reaction, none could locate the 20-page document. The proposed taskforce itself appears not to have developed into the continuing six-monthly initiative originally envisaged. A year ago I wrote a post about the issue.

Six years later, I tried again. In May 2025, I presented the 20 issues and suggestions to the National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership (NVCRP). Its then lead Mark Kameen MSc responded positively:

“Some I am already working with but others I hadn’t considered.”

We subsequently had a discussion. Shortly afterward, following liaison between the NVCRP and NaVCIS , I was invited to participate in a small steering group by the head of the organisation, Sharon Naughton MA . I welcomed the opportunity to contribute.

Six months later, having heard nothing, I asked what had happened. The answer from NaVCIS was concise:

“In short, nothing; we have been very busy on other issues so this was prioritised accordingly.”

“weeding”

I had also been raising concerns about the automatic “weeding” of Lost/Stolen vehicle records from the Police National Computer.

An unconfirmed stolen-vehicle record can automatically disappear after six weeks. If never confirmed, the DVLA is never notified of the theft either.

In 2024, the then National Police Chiefs’​ Council (NPCC) vehicle lead Jennifer Sims did remind constabularies about confirmation. But the problem continued. I raised the matter with the NVCRP and in late 2025, wrote to the new NPCC vehicle lead Sarah Grahame . No response. But apparently, the issue was to be circulated again – an indication this remained a problem?

I had been raising the issue with Gwent police, who had particularly come to my attention. But my attention has been consistent – the issue is a genuine worry as evidenced by the chronology of my writing.

In early 2026, I presented a summary of the weeding issue and a report ‘Has ‘weeding’ caused 1,000’s of stolen vehicles to not be recorded as such on the PNC or at the DVLA?‘ to several organisations highlighting the issues; His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), The Home Office, The NPCC, Gwent Police, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the Information Commissioner’s Office.

But I could identify little substantive response to the central question: how extensive was the problem?

So, rather than simply complain about weeding, wasting my time alerting organisations to what appeared to be a serious issue, this year I spent considerable time trying to measure it.

Identifying the Discrepancy

FoIA responses from more than 40 police forces in England and Wales were compared with DVLA LoS data. For 2025 alone, my analysis identified a difference of approximately 20,000–28,000 records — thousands more vehicle thefts recorded by police than were reflected in the DVLA data. I have placed the data here in support of my findings.

That does not mean those 20,000+ records were all inappropriately weeded. I have repeatedly made that qualification. But the UK National Audit Office considered my evidence, approached the Home Office and subsequently reported:

“The official my team spoke with [at the Home Office] confirmed that it is this process [weeding] which leads to the discrepancy between the police and DVLA databases…”

That left one obvious question:

  • How much of the discrepancy is caused by weeding?

I asked the Home Office for information capable of helping answer that question – FoIA request.

In July 2026, the Home Office confirmed that relevant VE602J reports are generated and retained,

  • This is important: VE602J reminders exist because LoS reports remain unconfirmed after the initial reporting period. Their continued production demonstrates that non-confirmation is not merely a historic issue. The unanswered question is how many subsequently remain unconfirmed until six-week weeding

But the Home Office declined disclosure on the basis that it considers the information to be held on behalf of police forces.

On 29 July 2026, the Home Office suggested I approach the NPCC. I did so that same day – FoIA request of the NPCC

On 5 August 2026, the NPCC refused my request under s.14 FoIA: vexatious requests. Part of its reasoning relied upon the number of previous vehicle-theft requests I have made.

Which leaves me with a fairly simple question

Do the NPCC, NaVCIS and NVCRP think I have nothing better to do?

I do not spend hours collating data, making FoIA requests, comparing police and DVLA records, presenting evidence and proposing solutions because I particularly enjoy doing so.

I do it because these are issues I encounter through my specialist work and because I believe some are capable of being understood and resolved.

  • If my observations are wrong, tell me why.
  • If the suggestions are impractical, explain why.
  • If intelligence is useful, act upon it.
  • If national guidance is issued, measure whether it worked.

But, if a known process can cause genuinely stolen vehicles to cease to be recorded as stolen, audit it and fix it.

I am required to challenge the NPCC’s position, to seek an Internal Review and have done so.

But if these organisations are not pursuing the issues being put before them, an equally reasonable question arises:

What are they doing?

Strategies, partnerships, steering groups, intelligence-sharing and public statements are all positive. But they are means, not outcomes. The questions that matter are much simpler:

  • What information was received?
  • Who assessed it?
  • What action followed?
  • What changed?
  • And who is accountable when nothing happens?

My current list of issues and suggestions covers just some of the subjects I have raised; vehicle security, questionable crime reports, overseas vehicle locations, data quality, information disclosure, provenance information, investigative opportunities, funding & accountability, weeding and the structure of national vehicle-crime activity.

I do not expect to be right about everything. I certainly do not expect every suggestion to be adopted. But I don’t think it unreasonable to expect an evidenced, acknowledged, concern to be examined, acted upon or properly explained.

And if repeated questions become inconvenient, answering the underlying issue seems a better solution than characterising the person who continues asking them as vexatious.

A chance to reset

I understand the NVCRP is seeking new leadership. I genuinely hope its next lead succeeds. Perhaps the starting point should be to ask not only:

  • “What information can we share?”

but:

  • “What information have we already been given – and what have we done with it, or could we do with it?”

If that approach is embraced, I will be among the first to support it.

On a final note, my submissions cannot be entirely wide of the mark. The NVCRP itself told me it was already working on some of the matters I raised, while the NAO has since independently confirmed that weeding contributes to the police/DVLA data mismatch.

That leaves some fairly obvious questions:

  • Which of the other issues were examined?
  • Which were rejected — and why?
  • Which produced action?
  • And which simply went nowhere?

That is increasingly the gap I am trying to understand. Because my objective has not changed since 2019: fewer stolen vehicles, more recoveries, better information, better investigations and greater consequences for those responsible.

If national vehicle-crime organisations believe the concerns are misplaced, I would welcome the evidence showing why.

Associated articles: