For All Vehicle Claims
 

Vehicles – REPORTED NOT RECORDED ‘stolen’

Is the vehicle in respect of which you have made the settlement still recorded stolen?  Our monitoring of the stolen status is plugging our client’s potential leakage:

Stolen vehicles ARE being placed on the Police National Computer (PNC) ‘Lost or Stolen’ (LoS) register, usually promptly.  In many cases, this is the extent of the police action following an allegation of theft; recording a stolen marker against the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) and …. wait, hope.   Will the vehicle, still on its original plate, be noted by a curtain-twitcher and a phone call made, or an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera triggered, or will officers stop the vehicle on patrol …?

All appear less likely these days and greatly depend upon the PNC recording the crime against the VRM, alerting to the stolen status if the VRM is checked.

However, in the background of PNC operations, an archaic process is grinding away; if, after 6 weeks, the constabulary fails to CONFIRM the LoS report, the stolen marker is ‘WEEDED’ and falls away.  This is a frequent occurrence as evidenced by these ongoing matters:

Constabulary 1

‘We do not have a problem with weeding’ as we put a stop to the process, instigated a procedure to prevent its occurrence’.

We believe your policy needs to be reviewed; we are contacting you because a VRM has been weeded from the system!  The constabulary failed to engage further.

Constabulary 2

11/2023, because of our contact, the constabulary circulated:

Investigating officers and staff are reminded please of the need to confirm stolen vehicles on PNC so they are retained beyond the initial period implemented via FCR fast-time updates via ICAD.
Failure to do this can result in the ‘unconfirmed‘ PNC circulation being deleted from the system after a 6-week period and opportunities to recover the vehicle being lost.

There you go, just as we have said … ‘confirm or it clears’ and finding the vehicle is far less likely. But:

We returned to the constabulary with another, subsequent, example which they logged under a complaint advising

‘I have had replies from our Data management Team and would appear that it was as simple as an operator pressing the save button instead of the submit button’. 

We understand an operator failed to press anything!  The matter is being reviewed, with the constabulary explaining 05/2024; ‘due to the high workloads we currently have we cannot provide a formalised reply to your complaint for at least 6 months’.

Constabulary 3

We received an email:

I have been sent the email thread in relation to your queries regarding VRM [redacted].
The vehicle was reported stolen in 08/2023 as part of a series of commercial burglaries.
The vehicle was circulated as stolen and was not recovered and for clarification has still not been recovered.
You notified the insured the LoS marker was removed in 10/2023.
After 6 weeks unless instructed otherwise, the stolen marker drops off the system of the vehicle.
I was unaware that the relevant department had not been tasked at the time for marker to remain.
I was first made aware of this in 04/2024 hence the stolen marker being readded.
I was made aware of this by the aggrieved as he was said to have been informed the vehicle was not showing as stolen after trying to make claim, by you

The vehicle was removed from the PNC LoS register for about 6 months before our information was acted upon.  We are asking whether, during this period, the VRM was checked on PNC, or by any Vehicle Provenance company. As for the claim – well, those of you familiar with vehicle theft will likely be asking why the insured did not press the police for action as this would affect their claim, delay settlement.  It was an interesting claim, withdrawn 😉

Read more about the CMA safety net here