WEEDING

Contents

In 2025:

  • The DVLA received notifications from the police that about 86,000 vehicles were recorded on PNC as LoS; however,
  • The police recorded approximately 115,000 LoS vehicles

Why is there such a discrepancy?
What became of the 29,000 vehicles?
What part does ‘weeding’ play?

Abbreviations:

  • DVLA – Driver & Vehicle Licensing Authority
  • LoS – Lost or Stolen
  • PNC – Police National Computer
  • VRM – Vehicle Registration Mark

The issue of weeding has been raised over the years with the Home Office, the NPCC and various constabularies. In January 2026, I submitted a report about the issue, which can be read here.

What is Weeding?

In computer records and data management, ‘weeding‘ is the systematic process of identifying, reviewing, and deleting electronic records or data that are no longer required to be retained. Similar to gardening, it involves removing the “weeds” (obsolete, duplicate, or irrelevant information) for example, to keep the records repository healthy, current, and easy to navigate.

In terms of policing, when a vehicle is reported stolen, a LoS marker is placed on the PNC against the VRM. If that marker is not confirmed within six weeks, it is automatically deleted (weeded).

Only confirmed LoS markers are transmitted to the DVLA. The consequence is that from day one, a vehicle may:

  • be reported stolen,
  • not be recovered,
  • yet cease to appear as stolen at the DVLA

This is occurring. After 6 weeks, as of day 43, since the PNC LoS marker was added, these stolen notifications are falling off the PNC. As a result:

  1. The DVLA has never been advised of the stolen status; these vehicles will not show in the DVLA stolen statistics.
  2. The DVLA will act, in respect of the VRM, as though the vehicle was not stolen:
    • A new V5C may be issued to a new keeper
    • The police will nto be notified of any activity at the DVLA
  3. The chances of the vehicle being recovered are reduced, if not negated;
    • A PNC search of the VRM will not reveal the stolen status
    • A vehicle that passes an Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera will not trigger an alert

This is a known problem, but it has been ignored. Related correspondence with the police can be read here.

Weeding & PNC LoS records

Following a LoS report, to ensure the DVLA is notified of the ‘stolen’ status and to prevent the LoS entry being weeded off the PNC LoS register, the report should be confirmed asap, within 48 hours. But on occasions, the troubling continuity is as follows:

  1. Day 1, the LoS allegation is made to the police.
  2. LoS entry placed against the VRM on the PNC.
  3. The entry is NOT confirmed.
  4. The LoS marker remains on the PNC but the DVLA are NOT notified. Vehicle Provenance (VP) companies receive the LoS notification.
  5. Day 14, the constabulary is notified that the LoS entry has NOT been confirmed; they are provided a reminder.
  6. The entry is still NOT confirmed.
  7. The LoS marker remains on the PNC but the DVLA are NOT notified. VP companies possess the LoS data.
  8. Day 42, at 6 weeks, the constabulary is again reminded that the LoS entry has NOT been confirmed
  9. The entry is still NOT confirmed.
  10. Day 43, if still not confirmed, the LoS marker falls off the PNC LoS register
  11. The LoS marker is no longer on the PNC, and the DVLA are still NOT notified of the ‘stolen’ status. The LoS record will also be removed from VP registers.
  12. Until the LoS marker is confirmed, an enquiry of the PNC or DVLA will not return the stolen status.

Weeding & Insurers

Where the vehicle has been the subject of an insurance claim, in the majority of theft matters, the insurer concerned is likley to have registered their interest on MIAFTR, the total loss register. It is possible that, upon the VRM being removed from the PNC LoS register, this will activate an alert and cause the insurance company to make enquiries.

This MIAFTR marker is also likley to be recroded by VP providers. Hwoever, it is our understanding this ‘insurance data’, where it relates to LoS records, is commonly only conveyed to mtoro trade custoers of the VP company.

Weeding & the PNC Manual

The PNC manual reiterates the concerns raised about weeding; the activity and LoS removal in the absence of confirming the report. Read more here.

A LoS report should be confirmed within 48 hours. Clearly, this is not occurring.

Weeding & the Ineffective Safety Net

As above, at ‘Weeding & PNC LoS records’,

  • after 2 weeks, a constabulary is sent an alert if a LoS marker has not been confirmed,
  • at 6 weeks, they are advised the LoS marker has not only yet to be confirmed but that it will be weeded of the regsiter if this does nto occur.

Independent Monitoring

The effective safety net for insurer clients.

This monitoring service frequently means we are the first to inform a victim that their vehicle has been found; oddly, providing the update before the police do.

Weeding and the DVLA

DVLA do not talk to the police or do they? The PNC manual states:

9.7. When PNC notifies the DVLA of the theft of a vehicle (confirmed LOS reports only) the Force/Station Code of the owner of the LOS report is included in the notification.

Any subsequent licensing or change of keeper transaction for that vehicle will result in a Report for Further Action (RFA – forms CL07 and VQ13) being sent by the DVLA to the force owning the report, for investigation

However, it does not appear the polcie are notified of post-LoS notification to the DVLA who were asked:

  • Q3. Where a vehicle is conveyed to the DVLA as having been stolen, for example, 01/12/2025 but the police transfer of this information to the DVLA does not occur until, using the same example, 14/12/2025, do the DVLA automatically notify the police associated with the LoS marker of any activity at the DVLA between 01/12/2025 and 14/12/2025?

The DVLA rsponded (29/01/2026 – FoIA 13027):

The DVLA does not hold any recorded information relevant to question three.

This is because the DVLA does not automatically share any further information with the police about a vehicle record once a LoS marker has been applied.

DVLA and Force/Station Codes

Whilst the PNC manual explains how a constabulary code accompanies the LoS notification, each year the DVLA records over 1,000 notifications in respct of which the police associated is ‘unknown’. 04/02/2026 the DVLA explained:

‘I have checked in with our data specialists, they have confirmed these unknown entries are where no police code has been provided for that notification. The DVLA are just record keepers and therefore are unable to provide you a contact for the unknown entries.‘

Is weeding a problem?

It occurs when it should not. The issue is not simply the weeding process at 6 weeks but the lack of activity that gives rise to it; that the LoS marker is NOT ‘confirmed’ (see above).

The simple act of CONFIRMING the LoS status overrides weeding, which means that it does not occur.

So why not do away with this requirement?

Is weeding necessary?

No!

The only argument offered to date for its existence is to address malicious reports of LoS; for whatever reason, someone tells the police that a vehicle belonging to another has been stolen, whereas it has not been. An argument we have considered is that either the victim or the police inadvertently record the wrong VRM.

in both situations, the victim is expected to further evidence the loss at which time the PNC LoS entry is ‘confirmed’. But this appears to be a rare event, and the speed with which vehicle theft allegations are closed suggests ‘confirming’ is redundant.

But the biggest indicator ‘confirmation’ is archic, unncessary is evdienced by Gwent police who, following our concerns in 2024, made a decision:

  • a LoS report would be confirmed at the point of notification.

Clearly, the need to ‘confirm’ was redundant. Unfortunately, rather than address this at the source, Gwent police relied upon manual attention and … human error appears not to have been considered! Weeding events continued in Gwent, despite staff reminders. We understand Gwent police do not routinely monitor the notifications of potential weeding – that they receive potential weeding notifications ( at 2 and 6 weeks) indicates reports are NOT being confirmed at notification.

Weeding – banging your head against a brick wall!

You can lead a force to water but …

Since before 2023 we have been raising the issue of ‘weeding’. It became such a problem that, to protect our insurer clients and their customers, we put in place a ‘monitor’ to be alerted to events – more about the police, insurer & insured ‘Safety Net’ can be read here.

Weeding Articles