My thanks to the loyal reader who has forwarded this response from HMRC wrt the internal review about the FOI re BMWs.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your email of 30 January, which seeks a review of our original response to
your information request.
Original request
On 22 December 2025, you asked for the following information:
“Are mobile Field Force officers in HMRC (those who visit taxpayers) allocated their own
personal vehicles by the department;
If so, what make are these vehicles ( for example, are they BMWi3s);
If so, where are these vehicles typically kept, and are the Field Force officers allowed to use
them for private purposes;
If Field Force officers are not allocated their own vehicles which vehicles do they use, eg
their own car, pool cars, hire cars.”
Our response
We replied on 23 January 2026, saying:
Certain mobile field officers are provided with vehicles through an approved car scheme.
Others may use their own vehicles for official duties, provided they have appropriate business-use insurance, and can then claim standard HMRC business-mileage reimbursement. Officers may also hire vehicles through an approved hire provider when required.
A range of vehicle makes are currently in use, with field officers using models from 12 different manufacturers.
You also asked where allocated vehicles are normally kept, whether officers may use them privately, and what makes or models are used. This information relates directly to the storage and operational deployment of vehicles used in HMRC compliance work.
Officers use vehicles according to the criteria stipulated. HMRC operates from multiple sites, the exact locations of which are not public. Information about where vehicles are kept and the vehicle types used forms part of HMRC’s operational approach to enforcement, including activity targeting individuals and organised criminal groups.
For these reasons, we are refusing this part of your request under sections 31(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act.
Section 31
Section 31(1)(a) states:
“(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice— (a) the prevention or detection of crime,”
Releasing information about where HMRC field vehicles are kept, or the types of vehicles used, would reveal operational patterns and potential deployment points for officers engaged in compliance activity. Criminal groups actively seek intelligence on HMRC’s presence, routines, and vulnerabilities.
Access to this information could allow individuals to:
• monitor HMRC officers’ movements
• identify periods when officers may be vulnerable
• interfere with, damage or disable vehicles used in live investigations
• anticipate or evade HMRC visits
Disclosure would therefore be likely to undermine HMRC’s ability to prevent and detect crime and would compromise planned enforcement activity. Section 31(1)(a) is therefore engaged for the second and third parts of your request.
Section 38
Section 38(1)(b) states:
“(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to—
_ (b) endanger the safety of any individual.”
Field Force officers work in environments where confrontation, intimidation and threats are known risks. Revealing where vehicles are stored, how they are typically used, or what vehicle types are deployed could allow individuals to identify officer locations, routines, or movements. This creates a foreseeable risk that officers could be targeted, harassed, or harmed.
Disclosure could also allow inferences to be drawn about the presence or identity of individual officers, further increasing personal risk. Section 38(1)(b) is therefore engaged for questions 2 and 3 of your request.
Public interest test
These exemptions are qualified, so HMRC must consider whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemptions.
There is a clear public interest in transparency, particularly in how public funds are used and how government departments operate.
However, this must be balanced against the strong public interest in ensuring that:
• HMRC can conduct effective compliance and enforcement work
• criminal activity is not inadvertently enabled
• officers can perform their duties without the risk of interference, intimidation or harm
• operational methods remain confidential, maintaining confidence in HMRC’s ability to
protect sensitive information
Releasing operationally sensitive details about enforcement vehicles would provide valuable intelligence to those seeking to obstruct or evade HMRC activity. It would also increase the risk of harm to individual officers. These factors carry significant weight.
We therefore conclude that the public interest in withholding this information outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The exemptions at section 31(1)(a) and section 38(1)(b) are upheld.
Internal review request
On 30 January you asked us to review our handling of your request:
“I refer to my above FOI request and your subsequent response.
If I could give some background to my request: an internet website which is set-up purely to criticise HMRC has been posting rumours about official vehicles used by Field Force officers.
Specifically, the claim is that officers have been allocated their own personal high-end luxury vehicles. The vehicles named are BMWs, the i3 model. Also, it is claimed that the officers keep these vehicles at home, and they and their families use them for private purposes in the evening and at weekends. Needless to say this has caused a furore of anti-HMRC sentiment and abuse.
While I accept your arguments regarding operational confidentiality and staff safety any information at all you could give to refute the allegations that your staff are "swanning around" the countryside in luxury cars at the taxpayer's expense would be appreciated. Could you please review your reply accordingly.”
Internal review
The purpose of this review is to assess how your request was handled and to determine whether the original decision given to you was correct.
We received your request on 22 December 2025 and replied by email on 23 January 2026.
This was within the statutory deadline in compliance with section 10(1) of the FOIA.
The response set out our review procedure and your right to complain to the Information Commissioner, as required by section 17(7) of the FOIA.
Considerations
We understand from your email that your request was prompted by comments circulating online suggesting that HMRC Field Force officers are provided with high-end luxury vehicles for their private use. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position. FOIA cannot be used to investigate or respond directly to online allegations; however, we can confirm the position as it relates to information we hold.
We have considered your review and looked again at whether our car schemes use BMWs. As part of this internal review, we have re-examined whether the information withheld could now be disclosed without giving rise to the harms previously identified. We have also reassessed the likelihood and severity of those harms considering the clarification provided and the specific concerns you raised.
HMRC does hold information about approved car schemes available to certain mobile field officers. These schemes are governed by specific eligibility rules and terms of use, set out in HMRC’s internal policy and associated scheme documentation. Under these conditions, a small number of BMW vehicles are provided for official duties only.
This clarification does not change the FOIA position. Providing further information about vehicle allocation, locations, or deployment patterns would materially increase the risks identified above.
We have considered the prejudice test as set out in ICO guidance. This requires us to assess whether the prejudice claimed is real, actual or of substance, whether there is a causal link between disclosure and the harm, and whether the likelihood of that harm occurring meets the threshold of “would” or “would be likely to.” Detailed information about the makes, models, storage locations, and deployment of vehicles used in compliance activity remains exempt under sections 31(1)(a) and 38(1)(b).
Disclosure would be likely to prejudice HMRC’s ability to conduct enforcement functions and would increase the risk of harm to officers. This risk is not hypothetical; HMRC is aware of occasions where staff conducting compliance activity have faced hostility or intimidation linked to their perceived role While we recognise the public interest in addressing misinformation, disclosure under FOIA is disclosure to the world at large. Once released, the information could not be controlled or limited to rebutting specific claims, and this significantly increases the weight of the public interest in maintaining the exemptions.
If you have concerns about potential misuse of HMRC vehicles, these should be reported through the appropriate route for alleged misconduct by HMRC staff, which is separate from the FOIA process.
Conclusion
Having completed this internal review, we are satisfied that HMRC has complied with the FOIA. We remain satisfied that the information was appropriately withheld under sections 31(1)(a) and 38(1)(b). On balance, we consider that the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions and the original response is upheld.
Appeal process
If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review you can complain to the
Information Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,
HM Revenue and Customs
HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
