Fleet List and Sold Vehicles – October 2025

Response

Please find attached:

 

• Disclosure 1 – Avon and Somerset Police current fleet list.
• Disclosure 2 – Avon and Somerset Police sold vehicles

 

Please note that our fleet is subject to ongoing changes. As such, the data provided may differ from any previously published fleet lists and may not reflect future publications.

 

The following information has been withheld and removed from the attached fleet list:

• Details relating to covert vehicles
• The number and specifications of vehicles used by operationally sensitive departments
• Whether vehicles are marked or unmarked
• Vehicle Registration Marks (VRMs)
• Specific vehicle models

 

This information has been withheld under the following exemption:

 

Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement

 

Section 31 is a qualified and prejudice-based exemption. This means that disclosure requires an assessment of the potential harm and a consideration of the public interest, as outlined below.

 

Harm

Disclosing full lists of VRMs for marked vehicles could facilitate criminal activity and pose risks to members of the public. Specifically:

 

• A list of police VRMs could be exploited for criminal purposes, such as cloning plates to impersonate police vehicles.
• Marked police vehicles are often exempt from tolls and congestion charges, which are processed via automatic VRM recognition. Cloned vehicles could fraudulently benefit from these exemptions.
• Decommissioned police vehicles are sold at public auctions and may be used by members of the public. Making VRMs publicly accessible could expose these individuals to risk, particularly from organised crime groups (OCGs).
• Detailed VRM listings could allow OCGs to assess the force’s operational capabilities, such as the number of Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs) or Road Policing Units (RPUs), by comparing vehicle types and volumes.

 

Additionally, releasing information that identifies the purpose of overt or covert vehicles could compromise law enforcement operations. Criminals could use this data, in conjunction with other publicly available information, to identify vehicles used for specific roles or covert activities. This would hinder crime prevention and detection, and could jeopardise ongoing or future investigations.

 

The vehicle model information includes role-specific details. For specialist vehicles such as ARVs, disclosing the model would reveal tactical resource information. Even for general vehicles, revealing some models would indirectly expose the roles of others by omission.

 

Public Interest Test – Section 31(1)(a)(b)

Factors favouring disclosure:

• Disclosure may enhance public understanding and debate regarding police resources allocated for crime prevention and detection.
• It may be argued that VRMs are already visible on marked police vehicles.

 

Factors favouring non-disclosure:

• While VRMs are publicly visible, compiling them into a single, accessible list significantly increases their value to individuals with criminal intent.
• Identifying vehicles assigned to specific units could compromise their operational use and allow them to be targeted.
• Disclosure could reveal the strength and distribution of police resources, giving offenders a tactical advantage and undermining public safety.
• Revealing covert vehicle details could expose law enforcement capabilities and render those vehicles ineffective. Criminals could use this information to evade detection or destroy evidence, potentially identifying officers and compromising covert operations.

 

Balance Test 

The police service has a duty to ensure effective law enforcement, including the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension of offenders.

 

The ability to deliver effective law enforcement is paramount. While transparency is important, there is no substantial public interest in identifying covert operations or vehicle roles. Although some individuals may find this information interesting, this does not equate to a genuine public interest. On balance, the risks associated with disclosure outweigh the benefits.

 

 

Regarding sold vehicles, information is held since June 2015. The second attached document contains details of vehicle descriptions and sale dates for vehicles sold from that time up to 04 September 2025. For vehicles with a VRM in a standard format, only the first four characters—which indicate regional and age identifiers—have been provided.

 

The rationale for disclosing only the first four characters of the VRM is that full VRMs could make the vehicles identifiable as former police vehicles. This could result in the disclosure of personal information relating to the current owners and potentially place them at risk. Therefore, the last three characters have been removed in accordance with the following exemptions:

• Section 40(2) – Third party personal information
• Section 38(1) – Health and Safety

 

Section 40(2) – Personal Information

Section 40 is a class-based absolute exemption, meaning there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.

Information is exempt under this section if it constitutes personal data and its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. Personal data relates to a living individual who can be identified either directly from the information or indirectly when combined with other available data.

Disclosing full VRMs would significantly increase the risk of individuals being identified, thereby breaching Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act 2018: lawfulness, fairness, and transparency.

 

 

Section 38 Health and safety

 

The VRMs of sold vehicles are also exempt under Section 38(1)(a)(b), which relates to health and safety. This is a prejudice-based qualified exemption, requiring both an articulation of harm and a public interest test.

 

Evidence of Harm

If a retired police vehicle is sold to a member of the public, the new owner could be targeted under the mistaken belief that the vehicle is still in police use. This could expose them to risk and negatively impact their safety and mental wellbeing.

 

Public Interest Considerations

Factors favouring disclosure:

• Disclosure may promote public trust in the police service by demonstrating transparency in the retirement and disposal of police vehicles.

 

Factors favouring non-disclosure:

• Releasing this information could expose individuals to targeting by malicious actors, risking harm to their mental health and safety.
• The Constabulary has a duty to protect the wellbeing of the communities it serves. Disclosure that could compromise this responsibility would undermine public confidence.

 

Balancing test

After weighing the competing interests, it has been determined that disclosure of the full VRMs would not be in the public interest. The potential harm to individuals outweighs any benefit of disclosure. At this time, there is no further tangible community benefit in complying with Section 1(1)(b) of the Act.

 

This constitutes a partial refusal notice under Section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.