Recovery of stolen equipment
The recovery rate for stolen plant and equipment is less than 5%. 95% of equipment that is stolen every year, year on year, is not recovered.
The reasons for the low recovery rate are:
GOVERNMENT
- Plant and equipment crime is not a measurable Government target given to Police Chief Constables, which means that, despite known links to serious and organised crime and terrorism, there is no incentive for Chief Officers to address this crime through investment in training or investigation.
- The penalties for equipment theft are not sufficient deterrent to criminals when balanced against the likely rewards from this crime
- Smuggling stolen plant and equipment over the UK’s external borders is no obstacle for criminals. The UK fails to take advantage of its sea border points through which all stolen plant being exported must pass. In Europe the problem is exasapated because of mutual land borders, with no border controls yet with differing governmental, policing and judicial policies and objectives
POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
- Plant and equipment crime is generally National Intelligence Model Level 2 and Level 3 crime, which means equipment stolen in one police area will usually be moved to another force area or even overseas. There is little incentive for Chief Officers to become involved in investigating crimes which are both not a priority and which involve other police force clear-up rates.
- There is little awareness of plant and equipment theft, or its links to serious and organised crime and terrorism, amongst the police and law enforcement community
- Plant and equipment identification is more complex than motor vehicle identification, so plant and equipment tends to be avoided by police officers because they have not been trained in equipment identification.
- The Police National Computer, the police database of stolen plant and equipment, has a very low level of accuracy. Even where an officer is investigating a stolen item and has the correct equipment identification data, there is a low chance of matching this against police theft data.
OWNERS AND USERS
- Those in the plant and equipment industry that know about plant and equipment criminals and crime are not prepared to share the information with law enforcement
- The equipment identity record keeping by plant owners is often inadequate which means that even where an item is correctly identified it cannot be matched against the company’s records
- There is little take up of after-theft recovery systems for plant and equipment which are covert and robust enough to resist detection, neutralisation and destruction by criminals. There are not many such products available. This is despite insurers offering incentives for fitting such devices
- Equipment owners would rather have their client’s, or an insurance company’s, claims settlement than they would have the stolen and recovered equipment back. This is partly because they will generally get more value from a claims settlement than they would from the recovered machine, and partly because, if they wish to continue to hire the machine, they must ensure that the stolen and recovered machine meets their own and health and safety’s standards, which may cost a disproportionate amount in rectifying on a recovered stolen machine
PURCHASERS AND SELLERS
- There is no culture of due diligence for theft amongst purchasers and sellers of equipment. There is little incentive for owners to be concerned if they do purchase stolen equipment
INSURANCE
- Insurance companies generally only require their clients’ own valuation of an equipment fleet as the basis of their premium. They do not know what they are insuring, or if it is stolen, or even if they have already paid a claim on an item for which they are now providing insurance
MANUFACTURERS
- The equipment does not have sufficiently robust or covert identification data to resist tampering, alteration and destruction