It’s a question that over three million victims of car theft in the UK have asked since the millennium and even though 1.35 million of these vehicles were eventually recovered, less than 20 per cent of their owners knew it, writes veteran in the field of auto-crime, Ken German.
Car theft is a diverse subject and it’s one that’s guaranteed to animate anyone who has been affected by it, not just the victims. Most are keen to relate their own experiences, particularly when it comes to their dealings with both the police and their own insurance companies.
Some views are strong, derisory and deep rooted in the failings of the above dutifully reported by the media. Indeed some words like useless, unsatisfactory, unhelpful and under-informed are in common parlance when describing the general malaise and lack of interest in each person’s own individual loss.
When it comes to the plight of these stolen vehicles, no one is short of a few friendly ‘experts’ proffering their own opinion on who might be responsible and its usually either local opportunists working for the ubiquitous ‘chop-shops’ or the international car trafficking gangs that roam the streets of the UK looking for spoils.
A favourite speculation is that ‘most’ stolen vehicles will either be stripped down and sold for spare parts or maybe cloned onto the identity of another similar car or they were simply bundled into a shipping container and sent to darkest Africa where they will likely never be seen again.
While many victims with real experience of this crime are eager to point the guilty finger at the police, their insurance companies and local government as being partly responsible (and they may well be right), my research for answers into some of these theft cases found that nothing is ever quite what it seems.
For example Mr. A, the owner of a cosseted classic Mercedes estate car, discovered in February 2020 that it had been stolen from his home driveway overnight. He remembers reporting the theft to the police by telephone and that much to his annoyance no one turned up to speak to him or even look at the scene of the crime.
They did however give him a crime book reference number which he duly forwarded to his insurance company and from whom, some weeks later, he received an agreed compensation payment. Since that time, over 4 years ago, he has simply heard nothing from the police or indeed anyone about the incident.
Whilst this lack of communication seemed to be a common thread with several other victims of theft, there is in this case more to the story. I discovered that our victim’s car was in fact recovered just ten weeks after it had been reported stolen. On this occasion, it was found parked unattended in the street and there had been no police investigation nor were any suspects involved.
The car was collected by agents of its new owners, who were the original victim’s (Mr. A’s) insurance company. who organised its resale to another interested purchaser who enjoyed ownership of it for 18 months prior to again selling it on to someone else.
Our victim Mr. A had not been informed of the car’s recovery by his insurance company because, at the time it was recovered, they had become the new owners on payment to Mr. A. and had accordingly notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) of that fact, which incidentally is standard practice with most insurance companies. In essence, at the time of its recovery, Mr. A no longer owned it. Clearly both Mr. A and his insurance company had failed to make any mutual arrangements that he, the owner, wished to be informed when and if his vehicle was, if ever, recovered. In hindsight, he wrongly assumed that this would be the case.
Another incident related to a young man (Mr. B) who reported the theft of his Mazda MX5 car to the police in March 2024. The officer who took details from him over the telephone he remembers expressed sympathy, gave him a crime book reference number for his insurance company and implied that someone would be ‘in touch’.
No more communication was received by Mr. B from the police and apart from forwarding the crime book reference details to his insurance company, he heard nothing more from them until seven weeks later when he discovered from friends that ‘his’ car had been seen being driven in a nearby village. When he contacted the police about this sighting, they informed him that his car was not in fact shown as stolen. His insurance company had also discovered this fact and initially refused to consider any compensation payment.
Suffice to say that unfortunately not only had Mr. B failed to confirm the theft of his car to the police within six weeks, which he was required to do, the officer allocated to investigate his crime had also failed to contact Mr. B to enquire if his car was still in fact stolen and it had not in the meantime been recovered. Due to these errors Mr. B’s theft report had been erroneously weeded off the PNC after six weeks. Eventually the police detained and interviewed the driver about his questionable ownership of the car and released. He was found to be innocent and after undisclosed negotiations, the Mazda was eventually returned to Mr. B.
There are always some people who remember their car stolen being ‘some considerable time ago’ and Mr. C the owner of Jaguar XJS had his taken in November 2016 when thieves broke into his West London garage and removed it. Mr. C had been pleased with the police response at the time but whilst encouragingly photographs and fingerprints were taken, he had simply heard nothing from anyone in nearly eight years! My enquiries revealed however that his Jaguar had in fact been discovered in a poor condition under a tarpaulin in a Devon barn some seven years after it had been reported stolen.
The finder described the car being need of restoration when he found it and suggested it had not turned a wheel in a long time. Keen to be its new owner, the finder did his due diligence to find the car’s history and discovered that it had not been taxed, had an MOT or been insured for some years. He also enquired with the local police who reported that the car was not recorded as stolen on their Police National Computer (PNC).
Over a period of years the finder of the car had restored it and when he eventually decided to sell it, the original owner saw it advertised for sale and queried the new owner’s possession.
My enquiries revealed that the original stolen marker on the PNC had been ‘weeded off’ due to inaction after 6 years, which is standard practice for all stolen vehicles. Seeing how volatile the process of reporting a vehicle stolen appeared to be, I queried the process with a couple of the UK’s 43 police constabularies and in general, notwithstanding certain minor parochial differences, this is what should happen when a victim reports their vehicle stolen.
When a victim reports the theft of a vehicle to the police a ‘fast-time’ Lost or Stolen (LOS) vehicle report is created on the Police National Computer (PNC) by the local force control room. At this stage the theft report is initially investigated and unless there is an additional crime or other police reference, the theft remains unconfirmed with a six-week shelf life. National police policy dictates that an unconfirmed report remains on the system for six weeks.
It is important that a LOS report is confirmed within 48 hours of the time of the reporting of theft, because until it is confirmed the DVLA at Swansea are not notified about it. Any activity therefore on the DVLA’s record of the vehicle in question would not be referred to the police for any investigation during this time.
There is also in place at the four week mark an additional data quality process for all PNC reports called DAFs (Daily Activity Files). These are a high volume of prints that are sent to the Data Bureau each week that detail the reports the force ‘owns’ on the PNC relating to names, vehicles and property they have put on.
Should no action be made on the theft report it will be weeded two weeks later when the report has reached 6 weeks as a unconfirmed crime.
Prior to this six weeks weeding crime reports are also reviewed by the force contact centre in preparation for allocation to an investigating officer who will/should confirm its LOS status. This selected officer has the responsibility for updating the PNC and adding subsequent references on NICHE* which must be done by the submission of a Lost/Stolen Vehicle Message Switch (MSS) to Data Bureau. (Niche is an operational database of crime, intelligence and non-crime occurrences available to all police officers and staff.)
About the Police National Database (PND)
It holds two billion searchable records and captures data from 220 systems from 53 contributing police forces and law enforcement agencies. Failure to send this message and confirm the report of an LoS on PNC can result in the ‘unconfirmed’ PNC circulation being auto-weeded (deleted) from the system and the LoS marker removed after a six-week period, with any opportunities to investigate and recover the vehicle being lost.
Accordingly, any enquiries received regarding the vehicles Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) will reveal ‘no record’ of the stolen status and appear ‘clear’ of police interest. PNC bureau staff also perform weekly Vehicle On-Line descriptive searches (VOD’s) to check all stolen reports for any human errors and ensure confirmed reports will remain on the system for 6 years.
At each annual anniversary of a theft marker, the police force in question will be notified of the impending deletion one month in advance by way of DAF that there is a LOS confirmed marker for the force to confirm. Should a force wish an entry to remain on the system beyond this six-year period, a fresh entry of the original details is required to be submitted. Recommendations are that this is done selectively, rather than routinely for all vehicles, following a review of any individual circumstances.
This process, whilst comprehensive, is still volatile and clearly human errors can and do occur for a variety of reasons. It does however explain why some victims of theft never find out what happened to their cars and motorcycles. While it seems quite odd to mention, wanting to be notified of your vehicle’s recovery, irrespective of any payment received from your insurance company for its loss, seems normal. Clearly it is not and it’s a conversation that owners need to have with their insurers.
Also, if your car is stolen, its useful to keep tabs on the investigation by ensuring that when you report the theft to the police you receive not just an appropriate crime reference number but a telephone number and/or email for the officer investigating your crime together with a note of the force & station where they work.
A periodical contact with the officer to find out the current status of the investigation would be not just for your own interest but its shown as an ‘activity’ on the crime report, which should keep it live. Those who have suffered the loss of a motor vehicle, however long ago, may take comfort in knowing that the law decrees that you still own it!
In 1987 a stated case (R.W Jones v National Employers General Insurance Ltd) the Court of Appeal decided that ‘a subsequent purchaser of a stolen vehicle does not acquire any title to it, even though it has passed through several hands and was purchased in good faith, without knowledge of the theft. That said and being realistic those thinking of using this ruling for the return of their machine may well need a solicitor to assist them.
Nevertheless, anyone researching the history of a stolen machine may find help with any of the public-facing registers and data handlers such as Experian, HPI, Retainagroup, Vehicle Information Services, NaVCIS and even Interpol who are all informed of the above ‘unconfirmed’ reports and may hold information that the PNC and the DVLA do not have.
It’s true that whilst your car may have been sold in a Middle Eastern trade free zone, or some of its component parts are now on a taxi in Minsk the answer may well be less elaborate and more likely, closer to home.
