Skip to content
Car Crime U.K.

Car Crime U.K.

Understanding Vehicle Theft, Fraud and Identity

Menu
  • Vehicle Crime
    • ‘Form A Squad’ – Ineffective Action
      • The Vehicle Crime Task Force (VCT) – 2019
      • 2022 to 2023 National Vehicle Crime Working Group
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found in the U.K.
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found Abroad
    • OPERATION IGNEOUS – reducing reported car theft by 30%
    • Title Law
  • LoS* Data
  • Guidance / Help
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
    • Resources
      • Your Vehicle Theft Insurance Claim
      • Police Contact Emails
    • Links
  • Police Reports
    • Police Theft Reports
    • Police Collision Reports
    • Police Disclosure Delays
  • News
  • Policy & Research
  • Articles Archive
  • Contact
Menu

240722 Withholding Make & Model of Stolen Vehicles

19/07/2018 – West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner:

“Now it is time for consumers to see for themselves how secure the cars they are buying really are.

That is why I have chosen to name and shame car manufactures in this way and I will continue to do so until they improve security and help reduce thefts.

07/02/2019 Cars most likely to be stolen, named by WMP&CC

‘The Police and Crime Commissioner is so angry at the apparent ease at which criminals are stealing cars that he is naming and shaming manufacturers whose vehicles are being taken most often.‘
Source – WMP&CC

22/07/2024 – West Midlands Police:

‘ … we will not reveal the makes and models of stolen vehicles (recent National advice) as this can / could cause damage to the specific makes and models companies reputations’.

01/07/2023 to 01/07/2023 WMP total number of vehicles reported stolen – 13,431

Request for the total number of Jaguar, Land Rover or Range Rover vehicles stolen in the specified period

Response:

This information is recorded in a non-mandatory property field in the recorded crime system. This field is not always completed by officers and the information can be recorded in numerous places within the crime.

In order to locate this information accurately we would need to complete an individual search of all 13431 crimes recorded. However, we have searched Jaguar, Land Rover, Range Rover within this non-manda

tory property field. The results show that two Jaguar cars were recorded as stolen. The result for the other named vehicles was zero
.

Request for the total number of Jaguar, Land Rover or Range Rover vehicles stolen in the specified period without keys (without the use of the owner’s keys or key fob).

The two recorded Jaguar crimes recorded in question 3 above do not state that these vehicles were as a result of a keyless crime or not, it merely states stolen.

14/08/2024 The National Advice [re disclosure of makes & models of stolen vehicles]:

CRU advice:

The policing lead has confirmed their view is that the requested information is NOT suitable for disclosure. The relevant exemptions are s43(2) and s31(1).

The rationale for s43(2) is that revealing under FOI which makes and models of cars are more prone to theft, confirms the names of manufacturers whose vehicles have either a lower level of security, are more often the focus of criminal activity or both.

For such information to be publicly confirmed under FOI would result in prejudice to the commercial interests of the manufacturers in question, making their position in what is a highly competitive market, weaker. In other words, as a result of information provided under FOI by the force, it would be more likely than not that individuals would refrain from purchasing certain makes of vehicle over others.

S31(1) applies due to the risk that providing data to the public at large risks identifying to everyone, including criminals and those with criminal intent, the vehicles which are most commonly stolen, i.e. have a lower
level of security
feature or are more attractive to the criminal fraternity.

Revealing a vehicle is more susceptible to successfully being stolen increases levels of crime involving any such vehicle, whether than be opportunistic theft or as a target of more organised crime – undermining law enforcement.

Form of Words:
Overall harm:

The information withheld is liable to cause significant commercial prejudice to car manufacturers in the event of its disclosure. Confirming which brands of car are the most stolen is highly likely to discourage the public from purchasing cars from that supplier, severely impacting their ability to compete in the current market.

Additionally, relationships between policing and the suppliers would undoubtedly be damaged by the disclosure of the withheld information.

It is important that information is protected which would undermine current and future engagements and proposals the police service may have with car manufacturers.

Disclosure of information about the makes and models of stolen vehicles risks identifying to criminals and those with criminal intent, a detailed picture of the types of vehicles which are most commonly stolen, and as such could be determined to have a lower level of security features.

Criminals or those with criminal intent could use this information to then target these types of vehicles with more prevalence, increasing the level of vehicle theft.

Public interest considerations:
Factors favouring disclosure – s43

Disclosing the information would raise awareness of vehicle crime within the general public, potentially promoting greater vigilance and incident reporting to police.

Factors favouring non-disclosure s43:

If information was to be disclosed it risks compromising the commercial interests of vehicle manufacturers who work closely with police to tackle vehicle crime. A disclosure of specific manufacturer names would undermine
the commercial viability of these manufacturers in a competitive market. It would also erode the trust and confidence between the police and the manufacturers they work with.

Factors favouring disclosure – s31

Disclosure of the information would reassure the public that the police have accurate knowledge of the types of vehicles which are being stolen and as such can effectively tackle vehicle theft.

Factors favouring non-disclosure s31:

Disclosure of the information would assist offenders and leave significant volumes of vehicles more vulnerable to crime; as a result, the rate of vehicle crime would increase.

Disclosure of the requested information would also risk weakening the partnership working approach between police and vehicle manufacturers which would ultimately undermining the police’s ability to combat vehicle theft effectively. A reduction in partnership working and increased risk of crime as a result of disclosure cannot be in
the public interest.

However, when Staffordshire police were asked to disclose the total number of Jaguar, Land Rover or Range Rover vehicles stolen in the specified period

Q2: Total number of Jaguar, Land Rover or Range Rover vehicles stolen between 1st July 2023 – 1st July 2024, they responded:

Jaguar 44
Land Rover 205
Range Rover 11
Source – WDTK

Linked:

19/07/2018 – Car thefts nearly triple in the West Midlands in the first six months of this year compared to the same period in 2015 – WMP&CC

08/02/2019 – Is your car vulnerable to keyless theft? Fed-up West Midlands police chief reveals brands most commonly targeted by criminal gangs – ThisIsMoney

23/11/2023 – PCC urges car manufacturers to sort out security failings


Restricted:

02/2019 – Cars most likely to be stolen named by PCC

Recent Posts:

  • The Problem With Crime Numbers:
  • When Recorded Theft Is Not Believed
  • NaVCIS Funding: Still No Specifics
  • Agreed Police disclosure procedures not followed
  • £50 for a Police Report Update?
  • Section 184 Data Protection Act 2018
  • Keyless Taking or Key Questions?
  • When ‘Sale or Return’ Goes Wrong
  • BBC Crimewatch ‘Car Cloning’
  • Keyless Vehicle Theft:
  • Accusations of Criminality
  • Thefts Down – Except for Newer Cars!
  • Increase Pre-Crush Retention Period to 28 days?
  • Reducing Vehicle Theft by up to 30%
  • ‘The Others’ … are you among them?
  • Vehicle Abandonments Raise Questions Over Theft Claims
  • The State of Vehicle Taking in the UK: A Crisis of Enforcement, Not Engineering
  • Keystone Krooks – but £1.4 million stolen!
  • 2024 Vehicle Theft – how well (or otherwise) did your constabulary perform?
  • Vehicle Crime. Is Police Language Bluring Facts?
  • Superficial Approach to Vehicle Taking Overlooked Organised Crime
  • Keyless Vehicle Taking – Really?
  • Accuracy & Consistency Required
  • Do we need new legislation?
  • A System Built on Blind Faith? The Flaws in Police Information Dissemination
  • Which? … What?
  • The Rise & Fall of Operation Igneous
  • Vehicle Taking – Quantity not Quality
  • Vehicle Theft: 30 years of Complacency
  • The Devalued Crime Report
  • Vehicle Theft Surge Demands Police Action on Crime Report Disclosures
  • FoIA – Staffordshire Police are not the worst offenders
  • Vehicle Repatriation
  • Crime Number Devaluation
  • Manufacturers Cause Vehicle Thefts …
  • PNC LoS Report Weeding
  • Staff-less-shire Police Report Disclosures
  • W. Mercia Police – RTC Report Disclosures
  • Delaying Finalisation of Insurance Claims (for some)
  • Policing (or not?) Vehicle Theft
  • Fraud Not Theft … face the facts!
  • Cloned Plates: Register of Keepers – Lacking Integrity?
  • Police Theft Report Disclosure
  • Headlamp Dazzle & Eye-Snatching
  • Scrap ‘six-week weeding’ of stolen vehicle VRMs
  • Police Vehicle Theft Reports – A Lack Of Understanding And Standardisation

Legal Disclaimer
The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the content, laws and regulations change frequently, and the application of legal principles varies based on specific circumstances.

No Legal Advice
Nothing on this website constitutes legal, financial, or professional advice. You should not rely on the information provided here as a substitute for seeking qualified legal counsel. If you require legal advice or guidance, we strongly recommend consulting a licensed solicitor or legal professional.

No Liability
We make every effort to keep the information up to date and accurate, but we do not guarantee the completeness, correctness, or applicability of any content. We accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or reliance placed on the information contained within this site.

External Links & Third-Party Content
Any external links or references provided are for convenience only and do not constitute endorsement. We are not responsible for the accuracy, legality, or content of any external sites or third-party materials linked from this website.

User Responsibility
It is the responsibility of all users to verify the accuracy and relevance of any information before relying upon it. If you have a legal issue, you should seek advice from a qualified professional relevant to your situation.

By using this website, you acknowledge and agree to this disclaimer. If you do not agree, you should discontinue use of the site immediately.

© 2026 Car Crime U.K. | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme