Executive Summary

Why we did this review

ES.1 The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes statistics on fraud and computer misuse in its quarterly Crime in England and Wales statistical bulletin. It also publishes more-detailed annual statistics on the nature of fraud and computer misuse.

ES.2 The statistics come from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and three administrative data sources: Action Fraud, the national reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime; and two industry bodies, Cifas and UK Finance. Action Fraud is managed by the City of London Police, the national lead police force for fraud in England and Wales.

ES.3 This review looks in depth at the quality and value of the Action Fraud, Cifas and UK Finance data used to produce the police recorded fraud and computer misuse statistics. It examines the entire data process, from crime recording to data quality management and assurance, to the production of the final statistics.

ES.4 This review complements our review of the quality of police recorded crime statistics for England and Wales. We reviewed the fraud and computer misuse subset of police recorded crime statistics separately, as the processes for recording these crimes are different from those used to record other crime types – these statistics are derived from victim reports to Action Fraud and industry referrals to the City of London Police rather than reports to territorial police forces.

ES.5 To gain a full understanding of the fraud and computer misuse statistics landscape, this review also looks at the value of the fraud and computer misuse estimates from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). The CSEW is widely seen as the most reliable data source on fraud and computer misuse experienced by individuals. We examine the coherence of the CSEW statistics and police recorded fraud and computer misuse statistics.

ES.6 The police recorded fraud and computer misuse statistics are published as official statistics, not accredited official statistics, while the CSEW fraud and computer misuse estimates are published as accredited official statistics.

What we found

ES.7 Compared to our review of the quality of police recorded crime statistics for England and Wales, it has been more challenging for us to determine the quality of the police recorded fraud and computer misuse data. Unlike other crime types, fraud and computer misuse crime recording by the City of London Police is not inspected by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), and there are gaps in publicly available quality information. We have concerns about some aspects of data quality, such as the quality assurance arrangements.

ES.8 Some of our quality concerns are linked to the Action Fraud system. The City of London Police is very aware of the limitations of the current system and is replacing Action Fraud with a new Fraud and Cyber Crime Reporting and Analysis Service (FCCRAS) in 2025. The FCCRAS rollout is a five-year programme and not all changes will be introduced immediately.

ES.9 It is not yet fully clear how FCCRAS will operate or enhance data quality, but it is expected to significantly impact the way fraud and computer misuse crimes are recorded, and how data quality is managed by the City of London Police. Ultimately, these changes will affect the quality of the statistics published by ONS. It is likely that some of our recommendations for improvement can be addressed by the new system.

There are gaps in the City of London Police’s quality assurance of Action Fraud data

ES.10 One of the strengths of Action Fraud is that all fraud and computer misuse crimes are recorded centrally by the City of London Police. Such centralised recording of these crimes minimises the scope for discrepancies in interpreting the Counting Rules for Fraud and recording errors, thereby improving data consistency.

ES.11 However, the Counting Rules for Fraud have not kept pace with the changes in the nature of fraud and computer misuse. The City of London Police and the Home Office are aware that the counting rules are too complex and no longer fit for purpose. We therefore welcome that the City of London Police is working with the National Crime Registrar to refresh the counting rules and outcomes for fraud.

ES.12 The City of London Police has processes in place to quality-assure Action Fraud data. These include checks on reports submitted via the online reporting tool and the call centre, and regular audits of fraud and computer misuse crime records undertaken by the force’s crime registrar. We identified areas where data processes or quality assurance arrangements could be strengthened, such as data extraction and automated checking. To strengthen the quality assurance of Action Fraud data, City of London Police should, in conjunction with the Home Office, review its quality assurance arrangements and assure itself that these are consistent with its established practices for assuring police recorded crime data (Recommendation 1).

ES.13 The City of London Police told us that FCCRAS will be easily changed and updated compared to its current recording system. We also heard that the new system has been designed to make it easier for victims to report fraud and computer misuse, and that it has enhanced functionality for crime recording. However, the new system will potentially create discontinuities in the Action Fraud data time series. ONS, the Home Office and City of London Police should work together to review the impact of the new Fraud and Cyber Crime Reporting and Analysis Service (FCCRAS) on data quality and provide public updates on plans for the system (Recommendation 2).

ES.14 HMICFRS carries out regular inspections of the crime data integrity of all police forces in England and Wales, but inspections of the City of London Police have excluded fraud data. HMICFRS has never inspected the force’s fraud and computer misuse crime recording. This means that there is no publicly available information about how accurately the City of London Police is recording these crimes. Regular scrutiny by HMICFRS would support improvements to fraud and computer misuse crime recording. To inform the public about how well the City of London Police records fraud and computer misuse crimes, HMICFRS should consider inspecting the recording of these crime types (Recommendation 3).

The industry bodies manage data quality differently

ES.15 Cifas and UK Finance each maintain central reporting databases for the purposes of sharing information about fraudulent activities with member organisations to prevent further fraud. Cifas’ quality assurance arrangements for its National Fraud Database (NFD) appear to be robust and well established. UK Finance carries out extensive quality assurance of its management information but only limited quality assurance of the intelligence data it shares with the City of London Police.

ES.16 Some organisations are members of both Cifas and UK Finance and may report the same fraudulent activity to both industry bodies, which can lead to duplication of fraud offences in the Cifas and UK Finance Intelligence datasets. The offence may also appear in the Action Fraud dataset. The true scale of duplication across datasets is unknown. To understand the scale of duplication across the Action Fraud, Cifas and UK Finance datasets, the City of London Police should work with Cifas and UK Finance to investigate overlap in fraud offences (Recommendation 4).

The Home Office should strengthen its oversight of the quality of police recorded fraud and computer misuse data

ES.17 The Home Office’s processes for collating and quality-assuring police recorded fraud and computer misuse data differ from those used for the other police recorded crime data in several ways. The key difference is that the Home Office only receives aggregate-level Action Fraud, Cifas and UK Finance data. As a result, the quality assurance that it can apply to the data is limited to sense and consistency checks.

ES.18 There is no publicly available information about the City of London Police’s fraud and computer crime recording because HMICFRS’s crime data integrity inspection of the force excludes fraud offences. This lack of quality information, together with the limited scope for quality assurance, means that the Home Office has an incomplete view of the quality of Action Fraud data.

ES.19 Access to record-level Action Fraud data would enable the Home Office to carry out more-thorough quality assurance and more-detailed analysis and bring the process for police recorded fraud and computer misuse data in line with other police recorded crime data. We understand that the new fraud recording system will have enhanced functionality that will allow the City of London Police to extract record-level data for the Home Office. To enhance the quality of police recorded fraud statistics, the City of London Police should start sending the Home Office record-level Action Fraud data as soon as possible. In the meantime, to support the Home Office’s understanding of data quality, the City of London Police should send the Home Office quality indicators as part of its quarterly data submission (Recommendation 5).

ES.20 We found that the Home Office has a limited understanding of how the City of London Police quality-assures Action Fraud data. This echoes the findings of our review of the quality of police recorded crime statistics. To strengthen its oversight of fraud and computer misuse data quality, the Home Office should work with the City of London Police to gain a better understanding of the force’s quality assurance arrangements (Recommendation 6).

The Office for National Statistics should expand its published quality information

ES.21 ONS’s user guide to crime statistics contains detailed information about the nature of Action Fraud and industry bodies data, including their limitations and data quality issues. Notwithstanding this, we found several gaps in the quality information, including on quality assurance arrangements. To communicate and assure users about all aspects of the quality of police recorded fraud and computer misuse data, ONS should expand its published information on quality to cover (Recommendation 7):

• the unreliability of the police recorded fraud and computer misuse statistics as a measure of trends in crime, given the low proportion that is referred to Action Fraud
• the City of London Police’s, Cifas’ and UK Finance’s quality assurance arrangements
• the nature of the UK Finance statistics (they are estimates)
• information on the review of the Counting Rules for Fraud and the rollout of FCCRAS, and their impact on the quality of the police recorded fraud and computer data and statistics

There are challenges with the coherence of data sources

ES.22 The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) categories are aligned as closely as possible to the Counting Rules for Fraud (Action Fraud) categories at a high level. Some users told us they were frustrated by the lack of coherence between Action Fraud and CSEW fraud data at a more granular level. The review of the counting rules presents a good opportunity to ensure closer alignment between Action Fraud and CSEW categories and to ‘future-proof’ the categories so that they are robust enough to handle the evolving nature of fraud crimes. To enhance the coherence of the fraud and computer misuse data, ONS, the Home Office and the City of London Police should work together to ensure that the Counting Rules for Fraud categories and CSEW categories are aligned as closely as possible (Recommendation 8).

ES.23 Cifas and UK Finance data are not directly comparable to Action Fraud data because the industry bodies do not record fraud offences in line with the Home Office Counting Rules for Fraud. The City of London Police told us that fewer than 5% of Cifas and UK Finance reports are recorded as crimes. Reports which are not recorded as crimes are logged as information reports. However, ONS presents these data as if they are comparable; Action Fraud, Cifas and UK Finance fraud data are collectively referred to as ‘police recorded fraud’.

ES.24 We therefore consider that the term ‘police recorded fraud’ is potentially confusing for users. ONS should better communicate the comparability of fraud statistics. To improve the communication and understanding of fraud statistics, ONS should clarify the definition of ‘police recorded fraud’ (Recommendation 9). 

The Crime Survey for England and Wales is the most reliable data source on fraud and computer misuse

ES.25 All users that we spoke to emphasised the reliability of the CSEW fraud and computer misuse estimates for understanding the scale and nature of fraud and computer misuse experienced by individuals. Since the fraud and computer misuse module was added to the CSEW in 2017, ONS has added new questions to better capture the nature of fraud and computer misuse.

ES.26 In contrast, users told us that the police recorded fraud and computer statistics are not a reliable indicator of trends in fraud and computer misuse because of the level of under-reporting to Action Fraud. Despite the level of under-reporting, we heard that the Action Fraud data provide a helpful barometer of the fraud and computer misuse crimes that victims do report to Action Fraud.

ES.27 One of the main strengths of Action Fraud (and industry bodies) data is that they capture fraud and computer misuse crimes against businesses. These victims are not covered by the CSEW as it is a household survey. ONS should better articulate the value of police recorded fraud and computer misuse statistics by explaining what insight they add on the scale and nature of these crime types.

ES.28 Users told us that ONS’s statistical bulletins are a good starting point for understanding fraud and computer misuse, but that insight could be enhanced by adding more-detailed commentary and making the most of the richness of the CSEW data. In 2023, ONS temporarily paused the nature of fraud and computer misuse bulletin due to resource constraints. To continue to add insight on the scale and nature of fraud and computer misuse, ONS should add additional commentary to its bulletins on these crime types (Recommendation 10).

ES.29 We found that fraud against businesses is the key data gap in the ONS’s fraud and computer misuse statistics. The Home Office is currently undertaking the Economic Crime Survey 2024 to add further insight on fraud against businesses. We encourage ONS to include the findings from this survey in its statistical bulletin to tell a more complete story of fraud.

Next steps

ES.30 Our previously published review of the quality of police recorded crime statistics for England and Wales set out a framework for ONS, the Home Office and others to improve the quality of the data and statistics in the areas that we deemed critical to address before we can undertake a reassessment of compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.

ES.31 Given the range of quality issues that we identified, and the planned changes to the Action Fraud system, we currently see no credible way for the police recorded fraud and computer misuse statistics to become accredited official statistics. Nevertheless, users must be assured about the quality of these statistics, and therefore ONS, the Home Office and the City of London Police should work together to make necessary quality improvements.

ONS and the Home Office should develop an action plan that sets out how they are going to address our recommendations. This should be published by the end of 2025.