Dear Kent Police,

Please provide me with a copy of the request and disclosure that gave rise to the report 06/03/2023 'Victims’ outrage as 94% of stolen cars across Kent not returned':

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/...

i have not located a reference to the information at
https://www.kent.police.uk/foi-ai/af/acc...

have you published the request and discislcoure, if not, why not

please provide your publication policy

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Dear Kent Police,

The 2023 matters you raise, 11 requests are of course interlinked:
the pre 2021 schedule – it is irrelevant other than to demonstrate, as below, your staffing issues appear not to be addressed, to demonstrate why I have pressed the point; this seems to be a recurring issue or excuse.
My requests have followed two themes, broadly ‘MoU, withheld / delayed information supply’ and more specifically ‘theft investigation’ (lack of). The two cross insofar as the lack of MoU assistance relates, in at least one instance, to the lack of theft evidence / investigation.
MOU REQUESTS
1/478 27/02
Your approach to the MoU appears onerous and the delay in addressing them is of concern. It appears you have difficulty with Appendix E requests; that there is a lack of understanding of fraud and therefore a failure to disclose information
I have written to you under separate cover on the issue of an Appendix E request, repeating the request but am without response.
2/478 26/04 – a month later
This is not a further request but, as clearly identified by your reference, a clarification. My attempt to refine the request, to assist.
3/698 26/04 – a month later
There has been a widespread misunderstanding of the MoU with constabularies adopting differing processes at different times. The request was made more than 6 months after the issue of the MoU, by which time, as per the MoU, it was to have been reviewed. However, I had located no reference to review or further guidance being issued.
I approached the NPCC separately and learned feedback had been sought and some received. What was provided by Kent was unclear.
This request is clearly critical of Kent’s response conduct toward an FoIA; the indication is that you held out reply until the 11th hour, at which time, even if you had intended to disclose, you would not have time to do so i.e. there was never an intention to provide the information, at least not within the 20 days set out in the FoIA.
I did wonder whether you would ‘aggregate’ the requests and decline to provide information. Instead, I received little meaningful information.
I note no concern raised about aggregation, no suggestion of a burden from these 2 requests.
My suspicion is that your lack of resources means there is superficial attention paid to matters and a desire to exempt.
5/1147 08/08 - over 3-months later
Concerned about the response to the above, the delays and the excuse of staff shortages being cited (and whether this was accurate) I sought information.
I do not accept that staff shortages is an adequate response. This appears to be a hackneyed excuse, used before when replying to me, I question its accuracy.
Presumably, staff shortage has led to multiple delays that, if correct, will likely have been presented to the ICO i.e. I anticipate the ICO, if asked to review this matter will be able to shed light on the appropriateness of the stance by reference to their own records.
6/1169 08/08
I agreed to refine the above i.e., this is another duplicate
The disclosure about ‘concerns raised about understaffing’ was refused – s12 i.e., no effort was engaged.
9/1214
This is not a new request.
I took issue with the disclosure and sought an IR
The request relates to a small department (FoI), seemingly understaffed i.e. there are few people working there who are so stretched as to be unable to function within the law. I believe a senior Kent officer had raised/documented the issue (hence I expected to be provided with this information) but anticipated there would be an internal concern if indeed the explanation put forward was valid. Locating correspondence emanating from a small department to a supervisor or HR was unlikely to be troublesome, if it existed if the justification was valid.
I am concerned that the current s14 exemption is being abused
10/1147 08/3023
It is patently wrong to classify this as a repeat, to assign it the same reference as utilised on 3 other matters (above).
5/1147 specifically deals with internal issues raised.
This request is about an external issue; correspondence with the ICO
THEFT
4/992 06/07 over 2 months later
A different subject
The increase in vehicle crime is a national issue of substantial importance. It was surprising to learn of the incredibly low recovery rate Kent achieved – just 6% - Kent Messenger reported (06/03/2023) Victims’ outrage as 94% of stolen cars across Kent not returned https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/...
Something must be done about this. The request is associated with a much larger project I have on vehicle theft, prevention, detection and deterrent.
The request required little effort by Kent – you cannot provide the data relatively easily, within the cost exemption cited. I took no issue with this – the response confirmed my fears; there is a lack of meaningful data, it appears Authorities are simply guessing when they attribute thefts to ‘security compromise’
Information was exempted under cost (s12) and I did not seek an IR, I was accepting of your response. The lack of information indicated a lack of attention by Kent, and no demand on resources.
However, this is concerning as I expressed: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/claims_th...
It appears the public is being misled about theft methodology, that statements incapable of being corroborated are being made which, whilst potentially fuelling vehicle crime, may be intended to support police inactivity or excuses. It seems no one has the evidence to back up hackneyed platitudes - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/claims_cm...
It is possible the police simply do not understand vehicle theft and investigation; two matters I am reviewing (not Kent) suggest a lack of knowledge hampering enquiries and undermining respect for the constabularies.
However, concerned not to fall foul of such an exemption again, to understand what information would be available, I asked to be provided the available data, which was easily retrievable:
7/1182 08/2023
I sought the data fields.
The request does not overlap. It is an extension of the request and appeared to be the appropriate conduct, rather than putting Kent to the trouble of an IR of the aforementioned.
8/1190 08/2023
This flows from 1182. Kent disclosed that of 662 crimes only 4 had been no-crimed. I compared this with Notts police., with a lower theft figure, where last year 18 had been no-crimed. But at the time I reviewed the response in conjunction with Kent Police’s Operation Igneous model
The figure of 622 appears incorrect. Information I obtained from the DVLA indicates over 1,000 cars were stolen in Kent and over 2,000 vehicles in general. I am seeking to understand the discrepancy and whether the numbers are being ‘gamed’ https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm...
I should mention that I note no reference to my request for the Op’ Igneous information held by police, a request I made prior to the above and returned an ‘information not held‘ response which, once again, I was accepting of.
‘Igneous’ a Kent police operation conveyed the following:
‘The Investigation Model provides the investigator with a firm foundation from which to investigate and refute allegations of vehicle theft. It is currently estimated that North Kent is suffering three to five false theft allegations each week. Successful refusal of these reports would easily reduce North Kent Area's vehicle crime by 30%.’
My Op’ Igneous request was intended to obtain further information and understand the period in which it was applied (from/to). The documentation I possess explained the model had been successfully applied in North Kent in which period there were at least 15 cases which have been refuted and turned into fraud allegations. I wanted to know the period.
I was also keen to understand why Igneous was stopped. At the invitation of Kent police, I attended a meeting at the operation station. I learned it was to be rolled out nationally. Insofar as resources and costs were concerned, aside from an alteration in work methods and the slight infrastructure changes, the ‘product’ was resource-neutral. Yet the procedures were abandoned.
8/1190 should require little by way of resources. I explained that I did not understand the term ‘Additional verifiable information received’ and to this day do not recognise the application of the term. Is Kent saying these are ‘suspected fraud’ matters and therefore ‘no crimed’?
‘Igneous’ conveys a 30% ‘suspect fraudulent reporting’ situation yet now there is virtually (or actually) none in Kent!
It appears Kent police have solved the issue of ‘wasting police time’, of people making false reports to dispose of a liability, to profit or to hide other crime. But this is highly unlikely, the police appear simply to ignore misrepresented allegations. A more direct post can be found here https://www.linkedin.com/posts/claims_di...
It seems even highly implausible accounts are simply not being investigated; a car has gone, any suggestion of fraud will be time-consuming, could create an unwanted crime statistic, and potentially invite a complaint; best just let the insurance company deal with it? Sadly, that seems all too common – a concern raised by Suella Braverman (below).
We urgently need a more joined-up approach, and I have written to the Chief Constable about it.
My concerns, which pre-date the recent issues being raised by the Home Office, have taken on new life following the attention that crime, in general, is now receiving - 28/08/2023 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66636347 - ‘Every theft must be investigated, the home secretary tells police’ the article adds ‘Police must investigate every theft and follow all reasonable leads to catch offenders, the home secretary has said’
I have written to my MP and Mrs Braverman explaining that there is much that can be done about vehicle theft. I am mindful that Kent police know how to investigate vehicle theft; they have a model (Igneous) setting out reasonable lines of enquiry.
Ms Braverman is reported to be concerned she had "far too many complaints" from people who had things stolen and "calling up the police only to be given a crime reference number for insurance purposes". Often just what I encounter.
04/09/2023 I highlighted the issues The most stolen cars in Kent – who knows how? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/most-stol...
I am supportive of Igneous and believe there is much that can be done to address vehicle crime.
I handle insurance claims for insurance companies and Vehicle Provenance companies (a unique position giving substantial insight into vehicle issues). My motivation is a concern regarding the lack of attention to vehicle crime which is on the rise.
My requests are not ‘scattergun’, but by nature of the subject, and need for clarification (or to pursue aspects arising from responses that a lacking in explanation, or corroboration) they are more frequent than I desire. They are not ‘circular’ but in a well-defined, clear, straight line, they logically follow from one another, where necessary. They overlap only insofar as is necessary to reach a well-defined point.
The number however is insignificant in terms of requests made and these are divided into 2 distinct subjects (as above).
The requests would cause no disproportionate or unjustified disruption, irritation or distress as they are specific and in the main result in no disclosure, a further reason why I am required to refine and return.
Such are the limited lines of enquiry; a warning could easily be issued. I received none. The lack gives cause to question the constabulary intentions.
The information in question relates to a matter of interest to the motoring public and wider issues now being raised in parliament and by the Home Office.
The frequency of requests has increased in part due to my activities over the past months relating to vehicle theft, a review of issues that has highlighted concerns but the frequency is, in the main, to address the lack of information provided, to seek explanation and the approaches honed to get at the facts, some of which still evade me yet should not. The frequency is the need to make new requests whilst seeking information about others.
However, the number of requests is relatively small.,
Similar requests have been made of others (regarding theft) for comparison and confirmation purposes. To date, not one has any idea of theft methodology numbers!
I have a genuine concern there is a lack of attention to the issue of vehicle crime a ‘head in sand’ approach.
The only disproportionate burden occasioned is to me having to return for explanation, and clarification.
I sympathise with Kent receiving several requests, more than others, but they are on my doorstep and local information is available, the press has highlighted their situation and, as evidenced by the above, I am more familiar with some of their practices.
I have no desire to impinge upon the resources of the public authority by disproportionate use of FOIA, my goal is the opposite; I have a unique, comprehensive experience of vehicle crime that spans over 40 years and wish to see constabularies progress comprehensive, proportionate enquiries that benefit all. In 2019 I submitted a 19-page report to the Home Office (and a constabulary) setting out various methods I believed should be considered to address the issues which, at that time, saw manufacturers being blamed for poor security and in turn vehicle theft. Unlike some, I do not bleat about the issues (well, sometimes), I look to find and present solutions.
The burden to Kent is, if any, minimal as evidenced by the lack of information I have been provided.
My motive has, I believe been addressed but I am content to expand upon this. I have a serious purpose which arises from genuine and informed concern with significant value and a high degree of Public Interest. The requests have a reasonable, demonstrated, foundation, the information sought is of value to me and the public.
The approaches have a serious purpose; Kent appears to be less than open about their ability to address FoIA requests, using (again) the ‘resources’ explanation. Theft and investigation activity (lack of) is not simply topical, it is concerning. Yet no one appears to have meaningful information; West Mids police cited about 50,00 theft nationally, the figure appeared to be double this yet the ONS placed the figure at 130,389 in 2022 – a 24.9% increase https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/car-ind...
I do not believe any harassment or distress of / to staff has arisen. This was not my intention and if it has been occasioned, I apologise. I trust my comprehensive response provides reassurance about my motives. The lack of meaningful data held by Kent appears to highlight the issue – no one knows and in turn, no one will know what to do!
I do not accept Kent is faced with an unduly burdensome task in dealing with my requests. Upon review it will be noted there are relatively few, the number is the subject of ‘puff’; reference to related/continuing clarification of ‘drilling down’. I take exception to Kent ‘overlapping’ matters when they relate to my reasonable attempts to address a confusing response or seek clarification.
The requests are methodical, and openly presented via the WDTK facility to ensure I try to avoid unnecessary contact, chasing or monitoring by providing an admin’ facility. The requests are also more readily available to others who, in the current environment, are likely to have use of the data and concerns.
Vexatious: Means not having sufficient reason and/or seeking only to annoy or irritate. This clearly does not fit my requests.
I am seeking an Internal Review

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift