WEEDING

Contents

Briefly, ‘weeding’ sees stolen markers against a VRM fall away after 6 weeks if the police overlook an administrative process, if they do not CONFIRM the report (on the PNC).

If this simple (unncessary?) process of ‘confirming’ is not undertaken, despite still being stolen (not found), the marker on PNC will cease to exist as of day 43, and the DVLA will be none the wiser.

Enquiries suggest there are 1,000’s of stolen vehicles that are not recorded as such each year, for 6 years.

At 6 years, all stolen markers, confirmed or not, are removed from the PNC LoS register – another issue!

The PNC Users manual states LoS markers should be confirmed within 48 hours, but this does not always occur. In an attempt to ensure stolen vehicles are not weeded off the PNC LoS register, the constabulary recording the theft is sent reminders by the Home Office:

  • at 2 weeks
  • at 6 weeks

That these reminders (‘batch jobs’ – form VE602) are sent, that they exist, is a clear indication LoS reports are NPOT being CONFIRMED promptly.

At least one constabulary does not have the resource to check these notifications.

According to the DVLA, the Agency ‘relies on the Police to electronically update DVLA in a timely manner‘ (2023 DVLA quote).

In 2025:

  • The DVLA received notifications from the police that 87,452 vehicles were recorded on PNC as LoS; however,
  • England & Wales constabularies recorded between 107,734 and 115,710* LoS vehicles

*under a variety of Home Office crime codes, for example, HO Code 48 Theft of Vehicle & HO Code 37/2 Aggravated Vehicle Taking.

The DVLA & constabulary figures can be found here.

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

What is the extent of the weeding problem?

Who knows and who cares?

The National Audit Office has been advised by the Home Office that weeding leads to the discrepancy between the police and DVLA databases, with the police database including both unconfirmed and confirmed vehicle thefts and the DVLA database holding only the latter – see more about this statement below.

Weeding is not some imaginary, inconsequential process – it is very real.

Our enquiries have identified the discrepancy between the police and DVLA databases somewhere between 20,000 to 30,000, subject to the counting methodology engaged. The figures can be found here. The discrepancy will not be entirely the result of weeding. There are understandable, logical reasons why the databases will not tally. For example, the delay between the police placing a LoS marker against a VRM on the PNC and this data being transferred to the DVLA – another vehicle data issue!

05/08/2026, Insurance Business Magazine reports on the issue – the article can be read here.

A means by which to quantify the problem appears straightforward:

How many vehicles appear in the notifications (VE602 / VE602J)

30/06/2026, we asked the Home Office for the batch-job information and on 29/07/2026, they responded:

The report notifications created by VE602J each week and sent to forces are archived, and so the last four runs
are stored.

But they declined to provide the latest records, advising in response to FOI2026 08937:

However, as stated in our response to FOI2023/04138 of 31 October 2023 the Home
Office acts as a processor in relation to vehicle data on the PNC. Any information we hold
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.

29/07/2026, we asked the NPCC for the records by use of the Freedom of Information Act:

However, lumping our varied requests over the years under ‘vehicle related’, they cited the burden imposed, relied on s.14 of the FoIA; the request was deemed ‘vexatious’ – the request & response can be found here.

This appeared all the more odd as we had previously written to the former NPCC vehicle lead, the current NPCC vehicle lead and understood the NVCRP was also raising this with the NPCC.

2026 – The National Audit Office (NAO), the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council

25/06/2026 update – having approached the National Audit Office about the issue, they replied:

  • it is this process (weeding) which leads to the discrepancy between the police and DVLA databases, with the police database including both unconfirmed and confirmed vehicle thefts and the DVLA database holding only the latter.

The full NAO response can be read here.

The exchanges between the Home Office & NAO can be found here.

Having learned that polcie constabularies are sent ‘alerts’ about ‘unconfirmed’ LoS stolen reports

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.

The NPCC’s explanation of ‘weeding’ 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.

MPS shed some light on the process

A 13/04/2026 response by the Metropolitan Police Service confirms that the Home Office issues a ‘batch job’ on Mondays, utilising form VE602 that identifies VRMs subject to weeding i.e. ‘unconfirmed’ at:

  • 2 weeks
  • 6 weeks

It is unclear how these alerts are acted upon or monitored.

The above link also identifies the sections in the PNC User Manual that refer to the VE602.

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 recorded by VP providers. However, it is our understanding this ‘insurance data’, where it relates to LoS records, is commonly only conveyed to motor trade customers 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 not occur.

That these alerts are sent, it follows LoS markers are not always confirmed promptly, if at all. We understand at least one constabulary does not have the resources to review these notifications – VE602’s received. More about the VE602 can be read here.

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 respect 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?

According to the National Audit Office, following our approach:

  • The official (at the Home Office) my team spoke with confirmed that it (weeding) is this process which leads to the discrepancy between the police and DVLA databases, with the police database including both unconfirmed and confirmed vehicle thefts and the DVLA database holding only the latter.

Weeding occurs when it should not, need 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