FOI 0244-2026/27- Notice of Impending Prosecutions
Request:
If not all questions can be answered within the time limit, please answer the questions in order until the limit is reached. If questions 2 and 3 cannot be answered within the time limit, please skip them and move onto question 4.
- On how many occasions has your force issued a Notice of Impending Prosecution (NIP) in the following financial years?
- i) 2021/22
- ii) 2022/23
iii) 2023/24
- iv) 2024/25
- v) 2025/26
- How many properties in your area are currently suspected as being "Notice of Impending Prosecution (NIP) Farms"?
A NIP farm is an organised scheme where individuals or groups take payment in order to help individuals avoid motoring offences.
- How many of these properties in question 2 are suspected by police to be the subject of cuckooing?
- How many properties have been named on 20 or more separate occasions as the driver’s address by someone in receipt of a Notice of Impending Prosecution between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2026?
- How many properties have been named on 50 or more separate occasions as the driver’s address by someone in receipt of a Notice of Impending Prosecution between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2026?
- How many properties have been named on 100 or more separate occasions as the driver’s address by someone in receipt of a Notice of Impending Prosecution between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2026?
- What is the most amount of times a single property has been named as the driver’s address by someone in receipt of a Notice of Impending Prosecution between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2026?
- How many people have been charged in connection with operating a suspected NIP farm in each of the following financial years. Please provide details of which offence(s) they were charged under.
- i) 2021/22
- ii) 2022/23
iii) 2023/24
- iv) 2024/25
- v) 2025/26
- How many people have been charged on suspicion of using NIP farms to avoid prosecution in each of the following financial years. Please provide details of which offence(s) they were charged under.
- i) 2021/22
- ii) 2022/23
iii) 2023/24
- iv) 2024/25
- v) 2025/26
- How many of the people in question 8 were prosecuted. Please break down the figures by the following financial years:
- i) 2021/22
- ii) 2022/23
iii) 2023/24
- iv) 2024/25
- v) 2025/26
- How many of the people in question 9 were prosecuted. Please break down the figures by the following financial years:
- i) 2021/22
- ii) 2022/23
iii) 2023/24
- iv) 2024/25
- v) 2025/26
Response:
Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within North Yorkshire Police.
Decision
I have today decided to disclose some of the following information to you.
Q1. The information you have requested is published on the North Yorkshire Police website under the following link:
Safety Camera Deployment | North Yorkshire Police
I have therefore decided to exempt providing you with a response to question 1 pursuant to Section 21 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). Please see exemption explanation below.
Section 17 of the Act requires North Yorkshire Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which: (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question and (c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Section 21 – Information Reasonably Accessible by Other Means
Section 21 is an absolute class based exemption and I am not required to consider the harm or public interest when applying this exemption.
Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this letter acts as a Refusal Notice in response to your request.
Q2- Q11. North Yorkshire Police can neither confirm nor deny, that it holds the information you have requested by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) – Information supplied by or relating to bodies dealing with security matters
Section 24(2) – National security
Section 30(3) – Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities
Section 31(3) – Law enforcement
Section 40(5) – Personal Information
Section 23 and 40 are class based absolute exemptions and there is no requirement to consider the public interest test in this area.
Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption and consideration must be given as to whether there is a public interest in neither confirming nor denying the information exists is the appropriate response.
Sections 24 and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or nor that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.
Evidence of Harm
The confirmation or denial that any information is held relating to NIP farms would identify whether North Yorkshire Police has seen local level activity regarding them, or not.
A disclosure under FOI is not a private transaction, it is a broadcast to the world. To confirm or deny North Yorkshire Police holds any such information would reveal a picture of where NIP farms are known to police, and where they were not. This, in turn, reveals where investigations and operations, some of which may be covert, may likely be taking place. Identification of these investigations and operations risks significant prejudice to them.
At a local level, confirmation or denial provides valuable information to criminals operating NIP Farms about what the police may or may not know about their activity. Denying information is held confirms nothing has been identified and no action has been taken, inferring police are unaware of any NIP farms which may be operating. If there are offenders operating in the area, such a disclosure is likely to encourage or even escalate offenders’ behaviour, safe in the knowledge they had not been reported to police. Conversely, if a force were to confirm they held information, it may alert an offender or group operating in the area that they had been reported. This may lead them to amend or even suspend their activity in the short term to evade detection, undermining the police’s primary functions to detect crime and apprehend offenders.
At a national level, in cases where the same request is sent to all forces, should each individual force confirm or deny information is held, a mosaic picture would form which would easily “map” areas of the country where crime of this nature was being identified to a greater or lesser extent. This would greatly assist offenders and would likely encourage them to adjust or relocate to areas with a perceived lesser awareness to better evade detection. This would undermine local and national operations which may be taking place to target these criminals.
NIP farms are intrinsically linked to serious and organised crime, thus by extension, any information revealed about them places at risk operations and investigation into complex and serious crime as well as organised criminal group activity. This may place the security of the UK at risk. It should be recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. The UK faces a sustained threat from violent terrorists and extremists, with the current threat level to the UK given as ‘severe’, meaning a terrorist attack is highly likely.
In consideration of this threat level, providing any notice that confirms or denies information as held about NIP farms would, by extension, make national security measures less effective. In turn this increases the risk of harm to the public which is clearly not in the public interest.
Public interest considerations:
Section 24(2) National Security
Factors favouring confirmation or denial - Providing confirmation or denial information is held would support that the police effectively safeguard matters of national security. It would improve public confidence in the work of the police.
Factors against confirmation or denial - If the police were to confirm or deny that such information was or was not held, this could prejudice the UK’s ability to maintain national security, which is not in the public interest. Confirmation or denial in this case would allow determined individuals the ability to, over time, identify which forces hold certain types of information linked to national security and which do not, thereby allowing inferences to be drawn about what authorities or bodies might have an interest in certain matters of national security.
Any response that has the potential to undermine ongoing and future operations to protect the security of the United Kingdom would significantly increase the risk of harm to the community at large. Such actions would obviously not be in the best interest of the public.
Section 30(3) Investigations
Factors favouring confirmation or denial - To confirm or deny that information is held would enable the local community to better understand the extent of NIP Farms in the area.
Factors against confirmation or denial - To confirm or deny that information is held would identify which force areas hold information about NIP Farms. As illustrated in the harm, NIP farms predominantly operate within the scope of serious and organised crimes. To reveal information, including through confirmation or denial anything is held, that mapped the extent of police awareness and activity would undermine the police services ability to appropriately investigate crimes not only associated to NIP farms, but to serious, and organised criminality. It would also risk undermining local and national level operations which may be taking place, ultimately resulting in criminals avoiding prosecution. This negatively impacts local communities and the safety of the public, which is not in the public interest.
Section 31(3) Law enforcement
Factors favouring confirmation or denial - The confirmation or denial that information is held would lead to a greater informed public both nationally and locally. Awareness would highlight the scale of the issue, allowing people to take measures to protect their address being used as a NIP farm. Awareness may also deter people from using NIP farms to avoid speeding prosecutions in the first place.
Factors against confirmation or denial - To confirm or deny information is held, would undermine any local or national level police activity that may be or will be taking place in the future to combat this crime. To confirm or deny whether North Yorkshire Police holds any information would not only affect local level policing decisions but could also have an impact nationally. It would provide information to those involved as illustrated in the harm, and ultimately could mean that criminals, including organised crime groups may adapt and change their approach or location, placing the police at a significant disadvantage.
There is also a risk that partnership working may be undermined.
Balance Test
There is a public interest in knowing whether the police do or do not hold information on NIP farms, so that communities are more aware and take steps to protect themselves. However, the police would not want to undermine any local or national activity which may be taking place to combat them. To confirm or deny any other information is held would not only provide information that would undermine local operations, but also any national ones which may take place. Confirmation or denial would reveal intelligence pictures and investigative focus, with the resultant map this across the country used to criminal groups to their own ends. This undermines policing and places the public at risk. It is therefore not in the public interest.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that information does or does not exist.
Please note that systems used for recording information are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the data. It should be noted therefore that this force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other responses you may receive.