Leading the fight against plant theft

Transcription

2008
ANNUAL REPORT
© 2008, The National Plant & Equipment Register (TER)
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
This document is The National Plant & Equipment Register’s (TER) 2008 Equipment Theft Report.
The aim of the document is:
•
To provide interested parties with detailed UK equipment theft data
•
To highlight the vicious circle of equipment theft and to outline the virtuous circle that will address it
WHO SHOULD READ THE REPORT
THEFT DATA ANALYSED
•
Manufacturers
•
Owners
•
Users
•
Dealers
•
Auctioneers
TER records construction, demolition, quarrying
and agricultural plant and machinery thefts, including
trailers. Hand tools are generally not recorded. As a
guide,TER does not usually record items valued at less
than £1,500.
•
Hauliers
•
Banks and finance companies
•
Insurers, brokers and loss adjusters
•
Police and law enforcement agency officers
•
Security product providers
•
Regulating agencies
•
Government
•
Media
Theft data is provided to TER by police officers,
the Police National Computer (PNC), insurers,
manufacturers and owners.
TER MEMBERSHIPS
COMPANY RELATIONS
The Plant Theft Action Group (PTAG), a Home Office Crime
Reduction Committee
The Insurance Fraud Investigators Group (IFIG) www.ifig.org
TER is the sister company of the National Equipment
Register (NER) in the United States www.nerusa.com
The International Association of Auto Theft Investigators
(IAATI) www.iaati.org.uk
The European Association of Airport & Seaport Police
(EAASP) www.eaasp.org
TER is part of the Loss Management Group of companies
which includes:
Loss Management Group (LMG) www.lossmanagement.co.uk
The Art Loss Register (ALR) www.artloss.com
The National Plant & Equipment Register (TER)
www.ter-europe.org
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Contents
Contents
Executive Summary.................................................2
The Vicious Circle of Equipment Theft
Manufacturing vehicle security ...........................................4
Compare your car with your equipment.........................9
Dealers ..................................................................................11
Ownership ............................................................................12
Users ......................................................................................13
Finance...................................................................................13
Insurance ...............................................................................14
Trading/Auctions/Buyers....................................................14
Police and law enforcement..............................................16
Government ........................................................................17
Security companies .............................................................17
Media......................................................................................18
Criminals ...............................................................................18
The Virtuous Circle of Equipment Theft..............20
Recovery of Stolen Equipment .............................23
Statistics..................................................................25
Front Cover Picture:
JOHN DEERE 6920 TRACTOR
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
© 2008,
2006, The National Plant & Equipment Register (TER)
31/08/2007 from Weston-super-Mare, Somerset
06/09/2007 M5 Motorway Services,
Gloucestershire
£42,000
NFU Mutual Insurance
1
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Executive Summary
In this 2008 Equipment Theft Report we will look at the
current vicious circle of equipment theft issues and the
equipment associated industries’ institutional indifference
to equipment crime with a view to the development of an
holistic approach to dealing with equipment theft and the
creation of a virtuous, rather than a vicious, circle.
At TER we support any initiatives which will successfully
address equipment theft and promote the recovery of
stolen plant and equipment, but there is no single answer
to equipment theft hence the requirement for an holistic
approach across all the industries and parties involved with
plant and equipment.
What does the future hold? The 2012 Olympics is a big
project, no doubt about it, it’s T5 on steroids. But, at the
same time as this world class project is ramping up it is
passing the UK construction industry heading rapidly in the
opposite direction with the credit crunch, the nose diving
housing market and inflation taking large chunks out of
consumer confidence. A surfeit of machines with less to do
generally heralds a period of increased theft, probably by or
on behalf of overseas criminal gangs, because the price of used
equipment on the international market is ‘good to great’ with
construction boom-time across Asia and the oil price fuelled
bonanza in the Middle East.
In simple numbers terms equipment theft went up between
2006 and 2007 though this was not a particularly significant
rise, only 2%. The best that we can say here is that equipment
theft has remained stable. The interesting point to note,
however, is the 11% rise in the value of theft for which the
most likely interpretation is a tighter criminal targeting policy
of taking higher value machines – in other words, if you are
going to steal a machine, steal a more valuable one to make
more money because the risk is the same.
This period will also usher in a significant increase in fraud
as companies find themselves saddled with equipment which
they can no longer rent out or use (so can’t pay their bank for)
There has also been a noticeable development in the
sophistication of equipment crime as evidenced by a
growing number of stolen equipment recoveries where the
criminals have effected high quality identity changes to the
equipment and then disposed of these newly re-identified
machines through a wider range of sales channels both in
the UK and, increasingly, overseas. Why? Perhaps criminals
are feeling the squeeze for a range of reasons that we can
only guess at or maybe it is simply about safer and more
rewarding trading. These developments do, however, raise
issues for used equipment traders and auctions in terms of
the requirement to perform due diligence before purchase/
sale, and also for law enforcement on UK borders, given
what appears to be more use of international movements
and sales from the UK.
Estimated Theft Value per Week* ........................... £1M
Equipment Theft in 2007
Total Items Stolen .................................................... 3,630
Total Value ...............................................................£36.6M
Average Theft Value..............................................£10,100
* Source - The Home Office
and market prices, again overseas, providing an attractive exit
from the industry especially when coupled with a fraudulent
insurance claim for a fictitious theft. Fraudulent financing and
other scams aimed at the equipment finance sector will also
increase as the banks become more desperate to do business
in a declining market and accept deals without adequate due
diligence of their client or the deal.
Equipment theft continues to be a low risk, high reward
occupation for the Medusa headed criminal gangs that roam
the United Kingdom and Europe with virtual impunity stealing
construction, demolition, agricultural and quarrying plant and
equipment and trailers and disposing of them with similar ease.
JCB 3CX
EXCAVATOR
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
2
30/09/2006 Worcester, Worcestershire
19/03/2007 Whitestone, Herefordshire
£24,300
HSB Haughton Engineering Insurance Services
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
The Vicious Circle of
Equipment Theft
Year on year, equipment theft continues and many of the same problems persist.
The following pages discuss how the vicious circle continues and how,
together, we can create the virtuous circle.
The Vicious Circle
Manufacturers
Virtually no security fitted
No checks on trade-ins
Few registering sales
Dealers
Criminals
Little after-market security fitted
No checks on trade-ins
Sun shining, hay making in progress
Owners
Few register
Profit from theft if plant hirer
No pre-purchase checks if
buying used
Media
They are doing a good job of
raising the issue but should
focus on an holistic approach
Users
Security Companies
Don’t look after
machines
Trade Associations
Products not robust enough
Clients/markets not
developed enough
Too many false dawns
No one solution
Woolly about security
Traders/Auctions
No pre-sale checks
No post-sale registration
Government
No target for vehicles, let alone plant
Seen as a victimless crime
Banks
No pre-purchase checks
No registration of interest
Police/Law Enforcement
Plant is not a Government target
Less than 5 vehicle crime squads in UK
No outbound freight checks - Lack of identification training
Little cross-border co-operation
Little intelligence - Limited resources
Insurers
Have no idea what they are insuring
Can’t tell if claim is already paid by themselves or another insurer
Low level of fraud investigation
Don’t have cross-industry security policy for plant
3
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Manufacturing vehicle security
Unique key
Equipment security
starts at the
design stage of
new equipment
production. But, for
most manufacturers,
security is not
designed into their
products in the way
that it is to motor
vehicles principally because security is just not an issue for
their clients in the same way that it is for motor vehicle
owners. Most motor vehicles come with a unique key linked
to an immobiliser, and there is some law and much consumer
pressure which has brought about this reality.
This is a fundamental component of vehicle security which
just does not exist in a meaningful way in the equipment
using industries. One manufacturer offers a unique key as a
no cost option, another offers a key pad but in general there
are no unique keys in the equipment using industries. The
consequence of this is that every one has everyone else’s
key, and that everyone includes any criminal who can easily
acquire duplicate keys or adapt a screwdriver or penknife
to do the task just as well.
Perhaps the most important aspect of designed-in security is
that it is all about preventing the vehicle being stolen rather
than any tracking or marking system or database which may
or may not assist in the recovery of the machine at some
time after the theft.
It might seem strange that a site or plant operator can park
his £15,000 car next to his £80,000 excavator, jump out
of his unique keyed, immobilised, alarmed, tracking device
fitted vehicle and climb up into his excavator, get out his
Swiss Army knife, shove it into the ignition and start his
day’s work.
Whatever devices or approaches are introduced by
manufacturers here in the UK there will, probably forever,
be the problem of the international trade in used plant and
equipment. This equipment is brought into the country
without coming via the dealer network, often without
CE marking, and so avoids whatever, if any, voluntary best
practice that becomes standard in the UK market.
Immobiliser
The aim of the immobiliser is to prevent the vehicle being
started by a party not in possession of a legitimate key or
code. If the immobiliser is not integrated into the ignition
systems of the machine then it should have a unique key
which operates it. Ideally the immobiliser would be fully
integrated into the equipment by designing it in at the point
of manufacture. In the motor vehicle industry the only ways
to operate immobilised vehicles are by fraudulently obtaining
copies of the legitimate key or stealing the unique key from
the owner by car jacking or burglary.
After-market fits of immobilisers are virtually the only
immobilisation solution available for equipment today.
When faced with a new challenge such as immobilisation
some equipment criminals will take the time to work out
how to by-pass the security system and develop special
tools and devices which they can use to attack different
security systems. Police in UK ports often recover such
devices from criminals entering the UK from overseas with
the specific purpose of stealing cars and smuggling them
abroad for sale. The availability of such devices in the vehicle
market would point to their development in the plant and
equipment arena.
JCB 3CX
EXCAVATOR
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Owner:
4
22/10/2004 Basildon, Essex
14/12/2007 Marseilles Dock, France
£18,000
Tarmac
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Tracking device
There are three generic types of tracking device using a range
of different technologies. The generic types are:
a.
One used for management information purposes – eg
when is the next service, where will it go on hire next,
is the client using it when it has been off-hired
b.
One which is used for after-theft recovery
c.
One which does both (a) and (b) above.
There are a number of technologies employed by device
makers which are sometimes bonded together for
redundancy and product enhancement. These technologies
include:
a.
GPS
b.
GPRS
c.
GSM
d.
Radio Frequency (RF).
Stolen Equipment By Type
Excavators
20%
Other
30%
Dumpers
Rollers
Tractors
7%
5% Telehandlers 2%
5%
Trailers
30%
Each technology, when viewed from an after-theft recovery
viewpoint, has opportunities and threats which may best be
not alluded to here for fear of assisting those we do not want
to. However, it is well known that criminals are employing
scanners and jammers to check for the presence of tracking
devices and/or negate the value of such devices. Or, criminals
use their Mark I Eyeball to locate a device shortly followed
by the application of the Mark II Hammer.
Criminals have also built processes into their theft
procedures where they suspect that the owner/user may
have fitted a tracking device which they may have been unable
to detect or neutralise. In these circumstances the stolen
equipment may be put ‘on ice’ for 24/48 hours to see if the
police and/or another party shows up to reclaim the stolen
machine. Their calculation being that they may have been
unable to detect a device and, given the value of the machine
and the company from whom it was stolen, there may be an
increased chance that it was fitted with a tracking device. By
‘icing’ the stolen machine for a period of time the criminals
are attempting to activate any device. If no party shows up
to reclaim the machine the criminals will then proceed with
their usual disposal plan.
Where a covert tracking device is fitted and remains
undiscovered by the criminals and an immediate police
response is held back, these circumstances can offer
significant opportunities for the police to identify gang
members, locations and operating procedures. The keys
to success here are: passage of information; the integrity
of the device; the permission of the parties involved; and,
the proactive engagement of the police with the requisite
resources to be able to monitor, from a distance, and strike
should the device go off-line.
NEW HOLLAND TS115
TRACTOR
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
3/12/2005 Newport, Shropshire
01/02/2007 Stafford, Staffordshire
£16,500
National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance
5
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Marking
Owner markings
Marking comes in a range of guises from the manufacturer
applied to after-market fits. They have varying levels of
effectiveness as a theft deterrent when viewed from the
criminal’s perspective, from passing amusement to seriously
annoying. These markings can be categorised as:
• Decals giving the owner’s company name and contact
details
Manufacturer markings
• Paint work which signifies an owner’s fleet, eg. dark
green for A-Plant or white for Selwoods.
• Overt marking such as the serial/VIN/PIN number
identification plate, stamped-in chassis number, major
component numbers
• Covert marking which can be deliberately applied by
the manufacturer or be inadvertently covert because
of the nature of its position on the machine.
• DVLA index plate
• Fleet Numbers
After-market marking systems
• Microdots applied to the machine require a reader
to identify the information on the dot which then is
required to be cross-referenced with a database to
reveal the party who was registered as the owner at
the time the microdot was applied. It also requires
knowledge of where they are applied to the machine.
Most Valuable Thefts in 2007
Type
Make
Model
Date of theft
Place of theft
County
Value (£)
Crusher
Extec
C10
06/01/2007
Rochford
Essex
140,000
Loading Shovel
Caterpillar
963-C
10/02/2007
Woodbridge
Suffolk
136,000
Crusher
Pegson
Metrotrak
26/05/2007
Bury St Edmonds
Suffolk
118,000
Crusher
Warrior
1400
30/07/2007
Banbury
Excavator
JCB
JS220
19/01/2007
Ladybank
Thames Valley 100,000
Fife
80,000
JCB 535-125
TELESCOPIC HANDLER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
6
09/06/2007 St. Albans, Hertfordshire
18/09/2007 Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire
£24,000
HSB Haughton Engineering Insurance Services
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
There have been some drops in the number of
reported thefts from 2006 to 2007:
There have been some rises in the number of
reported thefts from 2006 to 2007:
Quad Bikes ................ -53%
Telehandlers.............. +76%
Fork lift trucks ........... -30%
Trailers....................... +22%
Tractors ...................... -25%
Compressors............. +22%
Excavators .................... -7%
Dumpers...................... +9%
After-market marking systems (cont'd)
Manufacturer markings
• Unique solutions applied to the machine require a
reader to identify the information in the solution
which then is required to be cross-referenced with
a database to reveal the party who was registered
as the owner at the time the solution was applied.
It also requires knowledge of where it is applied to
the machine
• Radio Frequency (R/F) tags are placed overtly or
covertly on a machine and require a reader to identify
the information on the tag which then is required
to be cross-referenced with a database to reveal the
party who was registered as the owner at the time
the tag was applied. Unless overt, it also requires
knowledge of where it is applied to the machine
• Construction Equipment Security And Registration
is a label based system with a unique registration
number linked to a database which requires the label
to be left in place by the criminal post-theft in order
to be effective as an after-theft recovery solution.
The one marking system that is guaranteed to be on, or have
been on, an item of equipment is the manufacturer’s identity
and this is the one identity which is most likely to lead to a
successful prosecution of an equipment criminal. As this is
the most basic form of identity criminals have spent some
time trying to understand, attack and replace these systems.
Of course, some criminals have the re-identification aptitude
of a three year old eating an iced lolly with one arm tied
behind their back, but increasingly they are becoming more
adept at erasing the original identity and replacing this with a
new identity which can be that of another machine in the UK
or one overseas or a completely false identity. Criminals not
only change the more overt manufacturer marking systems
but will also remove or replace the engine number and major
components identity details to cause further confusion
and assist with the hiding of the original identity when the
machine is sold, particularly into an overseas market. It is
important that we do not give a wide airing to some of the
errors that criminals are making with their re-identification
processes for fear that they may correct the more obvious
give-aways. However, even that which we at TER would
HITACHI EX60
EXCAVATOR
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
22/10/2003 Salisbury, Wiltshire
24/05/2007 Dorking, Surrey
£6,300
AXA Insurance
7
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
consider to be a basic error of re-identification is often not
quite so obvious to those in the industry, particularly traders
and auction houses. For most, the price sensitive issues of
make, model, date of manufacture, hours run and condition
are the key facts of interest when actually the elephant in
the plant yard is the identity of the equipment.
Rather than give the criminals an easy ride it would be useful
if manufacturers could overtly stamp the chassis with the
serial/VIN/PIN number in more places. This would make it
easier to quickly identify that a criminal had interfered with
the identity and make it easier to identify for those who
were unfamiliar with equipment numbering systems. Putting
a coloured box around the number or painting the number
a different colour to the machine would also help.
Covert marking. Suffice to say that the less said about
anything which will assist criminals the better. Some
manufacturers place covert markings deliberately and some
are covert by dint of their position on the machine.
Owner markings
Owners place decals on machines not so much as a theft
deterrent – show us the criminal put off by a highly dangerous
plastic sticker – but more to advertise their plant hire
services. With more than 80% of the UK plant parc being
owned by the plant hire companies it is a highly competitive
market and the additional marketing and brand management
contributed by highly visible decals can influence business
activity. If criminals can remove manufacturers’ machine
identities stamped into the chassis, a plastic decal, even a
so-called tamper-proof one, is not going to be a barrier to
theft in fact it is probably one of the first marking systems
removed from the machine by the criminal, along with a
DVLA registration plate, if it has one, which was exactly the
point made in a short video from the Metropolitan Police in
which the star – apparently an equipment thief – said that
stickers and decals were no deterrent to theft.
DVLA index plates are mandated by law for utilisation on
road going vehicles. While an index plate takes less than
2 seconds to remove, all the details of the machine are
recorded on DVLA and transferred to the Police National
Computer once the theft has been notified to the police by
the owner. An index plate is easy to check for the police and
easy to forge to show a false identity. In general criminals
take them off and leave them off. To be more effective
registration for plant and equipment should be a legal
requirement as voluntary schemes are just that, voluntary.
Fleet numbers are used by most plant hire companies to
identify their own equipment both for hire and accounting
purposes. They do this in preference to using the
manufacturer’s data because it is easier for them.
(continued on page 10)
Highest value recoveries in 2007
Date Stolen
Stolen from
Date recovered Recovered Value
JCB JS130 Excavator
03/01/2007
Kent
14/06/2007
Surrey
£40,000
JCB 530-140 Telescopic Handler
28/11/2007
Essex
17/12/2007
Essex
£39,000
Caterpillar TH580B Telescopic Handler
04/12/2007
London
17/12/2007
Essex
£35,000
JCB 535-125 Telescopic Handler
19/08/2006
London
29/01/2007
London
£30,000
Caterpillar TH360B Telescopic Handler
01/12/2007
London
17/12/2007
Essex
£30,000
BOMAG BW120AD-3
ROLLER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Owner:
8
19/10/2004 Weymouth, Dorset
14/05/2007 Yeovil, Somerset
£5,400
Dorset County Council
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Let’s compare your car with your equipment:
Your Car
Your Equipment
Manufacturers
Unique ignition key
Universal ignition key
Immobiliser linked to key
Unlikely to have an immobiliser
May have tracking device
Unlikely to have tracking device
Unique door lock with deadlock
Universal door lock, if it has a door
Alarm
No alarm
No requirement for additional security
No additional security provided
Registered with DVLA
Unlikely to be registered
Value £9,000
Value £49,000
Owners, users, dealer, auctions
Lives outside home
Lives by the road miles from home
Often secured in locked garage with security lighting
Site security of a wet paper bag - little fencing, CCTV,
lighting, guards
Most check for finance and theft before buying or selling
Most only interested in make, model, year, hours run and
condition before they buy or sell
On theft, owner get paid out market value by insurer
On theft, owner gets paid out market value by insurer
which can often be more than they paid for it
Insurers
Know vehicle make, model and registration plate
No idea of the equipment for which they are
providing insurance
Check whether stolen before providing insurance
Can't check because they don't know what is being insured
Base the premium on the driver, the vehicle,
Base the premium on the equipment fleet valuation
the location and the claims history
provided by the client and possibly, any known claims history
Police
Target driven and plant and equipment is not one of them
Less than 5 Stolen Vehicle Squads left in the UK
Equipment crime is Level 2 and 3 on the National Intelligence Model
Police's equipment theft data is poor quality (not their fault, at least 30% of thefts are incorrectly reported to the police)
Little knowledge of plant and equipment identification.
THWAITES 7 TON
DUMPER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
17/10/2005 Bradford, West Yorkshire
30/01/2007 Bradford, West Yorkshire
£8,400
Norwich Union
9
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
The application of the fleet number to the machine covers
the security spectrum from welding it onto the machine’s
chassis to scribbling it on to the chassis with an indelible
marker pen. Often when machines are stolen the fleet
number is the only number reported to the police and, while
there is a facility to record them on the Police National
Computer, it is often recorded as the serial number making it
more difficult for an officer encountering it to identify it from
the manufacturer’s identity data which is the most obvious
source of data available on the machine. In general, fleet
numbers are not a theft deterrent but they can be an aid
to after-theft identification, even where the manufacturer’s
identity data has been erased, if they have been recorded
correctly or if the person making enquiries is familiar with
the many different types of fleet numbers applied to plant
by its owners.
Unique paint work on machines is a distinctive way in
which owners can make their equipment more readily
identifiable. Like company decals the main reason for
respraying equipment – which is expensive – is more to
do with marketing than it is with theft deterrence or aftertheft recovery, but it clearly has some effect as a deterrent
or an effect greater than if the machines were left in their
original manufacturer’s colours. To be a truly worthwhile
theft deterrent owners could do to their equipment what
British Airways did to their aircraft tail planes a few years
ago which was to paint them in a range of highly distinctive
colours and patterns. The major issue is the cost of
respraying and then the cost of respraying them back to
their original colours for sale.
WHERE IS PLANT AND
EQUIPMENT STOLEN FROM?
Plant and equipment is stolen from across the UK and
Northern Ireland. Theft is most dense in the south
of England - Thames Valley, Kent. Surrey, London and
Hampshire - and is least dense in Scotland.
The Top 5 Police
Forces
Experiencing
Equipment Theft
Kent
Surrey
Thames Valley
Hampshire
Can you see where this chassis number has been
altered by the criminal?
Metropolitan
Answer on page 29
IFOR WILLIAMS LT106G
TRAILER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
10
04/06/2007 West Clandon, Surrey
13/12/2007 Worplesdon, Surrey
£2,000
Norwich Union
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
After market marking systems
Anything that will assist a law enforcement officer to
identify an item of equipment which no longer has basic
identifiers like its manufacturer data will benefit the owner
by enabling the property to be restored to them – or
their insurer. However, many of the currently available
after-market marking systems are placed indiscriminately
on large machines (if they were placed discriminately then
everyone would know where they were so they could be
more easily attacked) and they require a specialised reader
to be able to identify what the microdot or unique solution
says and then know where to call to match that data to
whoever registered it. In simple terms the police do not have
enough of these specialist readers, they are not current on
their training to use them, they do not regularly carry them
on patrols, cannot identify the presence of these marking
systems on the machines because of the size of the machine
and they do not know where to look, and finally, any label
which identified the presence of the marking system is likely
to have been removed by the criminals so the police are
not even aware that the marking system is present on the
machine. The same arguments exist for R/F tags applied
to the machines, except that they can be both overt and
covert. If they are overt and still present at the time of
recovery then an officer has to recognise what it is, have
the specialist reader available and working and then contact
the database for the keeper details of whoever registered it.
An issue here is that the registration of the marking system
to the keeper as held by the database has not been done
or is not in date and, because equipment trades regularly, it
is more likely to be out of date, nevertheless it can provide
the police officer with a start point towards identifying the
current owner.
Any system which relies on an overt marking system, like
a DVLA plate, is easily identifiable as such and therefore
an obvious target to be attacked by a criminal. It does
not matter how indestructible or tamper resistant a
plastic sticker is, a criminal or anyone else, will be able
to remove it rendering the marking system useless. The
bottom line is that if a criminal can remove and reidentify
the manufacturer’s identity which is hard stamped into the
machine’s chassis, the removal of a sticker is, not only no bar
or deterrent to theft, but also has the resistance to removal
of dead leaf from a tree in a winter’s storm.
Dealers
Dealers have a
direct relationship
to owners and
users. They are
well positioned to
ascertain the requirements and demands of owners and
users which have dictated the security fits that their clients
are willing to pay them or manufacturers for. A number of
dealers now offer after-market theft prevention and recovery
systems from immobilisers to tracking devices.
Dealers also have the opportunity to conduct pre-partexchange due diligence on equipment which is being
part-ex’d for new. Where the dealer originally sold that
equipment and that client is part-ex’ing the equipment they
can be fairly sure that it is not stolen, however they should
be aware that finance may be outstanding on the machine.
Where they did not sell the equipment they should protect
themselves by checking the equipment using the TER Check
before they accept it. A TER Check Certificate is also a useful
marketing tool for the customer who purchases that item
of used equipment as it confirms that there is no registered
record of theft or finance against the specified make, model
and serial number.
MERLO P40.17
TELESCOPIC HANDLER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Owner:
02/04/2007 Brindisi, Italy
01/04/2007 Measham, Derbyshire
£30,000
BNP Paribas
11
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Ownership
It is reported by numerous sources that 80% of the plant
and equipment in the UK is owned by the plant hire
companies. The other 20% are companies who own and
use the equipment themselves.
The role of the plant hire company is to make money by
renting the equipment out to their clients. Most of them
bulk purchase from manufacturers, making them the most
important clients of the manufacturers, and in doing so they
can secure trade discounts – clearly if you buy 50 at once
you are going to get a better price than buying them one
at a time. A criticism that has been levelled at the plant
hirers is that a contributory factor to their reluctance to
wholeheartedly engage with equipment security is because
they make money out of equipment theft. This, the critics say,
can be explained because the plant hirers rent the machine,
which was purchased at a significant trade discount, for a
period during which it is earning fees, the machine is stolen
from one of their clients, the plant hirer send their client a
bill for the machine at the market value – which, even after
up to two year’s rental, may still be in excess of that which
they paid for it – which their client’s insurer then pays. Result:
the plant hirer, it is said, makes a profit of the machine’s
current market value minus discounted purchase price plus
rental fees less maintenance costs plus ongoing hire charges
to the date of settlement. So what? Perhaps, if this is the
case, the plant hirers might consider reinvesting some of the
profits of equipment theft in better security to protect the
equipment which they rent to their clients.
Owner/users are more likely to take more of an interest in
the security of their equipment because they are generally
bearing the risk themselves – some will have insurance but
the theft excesses can be significant, some will self-insure (take
the hit), and some will have off-shore captive insurers. Even
here, though, security is not a profit centre it is a cost.
It is only when you reach down into the smaller owner/user
end of the spectrum that you find company owners, often
individuals, who really do care about the security of their
equipment because their businesses depend on its continuing
availability. Their theft excesses and premiums will also
warrant expenditure on security to secure a reduced theft
excess or reduced premium through discounts offered by
their insurer to fit additional security.
Security of the equipment starts in the plant yard, which
should be secure and protected. Hire companies should
validate the credentials of a party wishing to hire equipment.
Fraudulent hires are prevalent and hire companies are the
victims. Too often references are not taken up or verified
and equipment is rented to a party with whom the hirer
has had no previous dealings. The initial hire payment is
made, more equipment is hired, no further payments are
made and no further contact is had with the party hiring
the equipment – they have gone and so has the equipment,
in many cases overseas.
Moving on to the transportation of equipment to and from
site, the driver should have the appropriate paperwork
detailing the equipment identity, the delivery address and
it should be delivered to a person for whom the driver
has the contact details. All too often the equipment is
off-loaded beside a motorway junction and left either to
a criminal who has pre-planned a fraudulent hire or to an
opportunist criminal.
JCB 8080
EXCAVATOR
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
12
19/10/2007 Yateley, Hampshire
25/01/2008 Cantref, Brecon, Wales
£17,800
AXA Insurance
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
There is no doubt that some theft is as the result of
information provided from employees within the plant
hire company to criminals, given the theft of equipment
from some of the remote places that it is taken from and
the timing of the theft to coincide with the off-hiring or a
weekend/bank holiday. Plant hirers could consider proper
vetting of staff.
Users
Users often hire in equipment
and, quite rightly, are
responsible for its security
while they have it on hire.
Users have the opportunity
to request machines from hirers which have increased
levels of security but, unfortunately, they are more likely to
be focused on the task they require the machine for and
what it will cost them to rent rather than issues around its
security which can often mean an increased hire charge.
To say that most equipment using sites in the UK have
the security of a wet paper bag might be seen by some
as an endorsement of wet paper bags as security devices.
Unfortunately, the reality is that site security is, in general,
very poor. When you are driving home tonight or on your
way to a meeting next week just take a note of the number
and value of machines which have been effectively abandoned
to criminals at the road side or are sitting on sites with not
so much as a strand of wire to protect them.
Finance
Most equipment purchases are financed,
especially the first and
second sales. Financing
further sales depends
on the value of the used
equipment. Equipment
financing is a hugely competitive market where product
differentiation can often be brought down to the bank which
offers the quickest deal. Customers traditionally put banks
on little notice and under a great deal of pressure to agree
deals quickly allowing for little time for the banks to perform
key aspects of due diligence such as the verification that:
•
Their customer is a bona fide party whose credentials
and references have been fully checked and verified
•
The equipment exists
•
The equipment is what the customer says it is and is in
a condition consummate with the value that the bank
are being asked to finance
•
The equipment is not already on finance
•
The equipment is not stolen
An additional factor in this mix is the remuneration of
the bank’s sales personnel who are incentivised by the
number and value of deals they make in a month. There
is a self-imposed pressure on them to do the deal for
personal gain.
For these reasons a significant number of equipment
finance deals run into the sand and the vast bulk of a bank’s
customers have their banks' own processes to thank for the
high cost of their own equipment financing.
JCB 535-125
TELEPSCOPIC HANDLER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
31/05/2006 Doncaster, South Yorkshire
05/10/2007 Dromore, Northern Ireland
£16,000
Allianz Cornhill
13
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Insurance
Mr Bloggs wants to insure his car with Insurance Company.
Before they give him a quote Insurance Company want to
know all about Mr Bloggs, where he lives and the full details of
his vehicle. While Insurance Company is assessing Mr Bloggs
as a risk they check him out against the Insurance Fraud
Bureau and check his car out to see if it has been registered
as stolen. Assuming all is clear, Mr Bloggs gets his insurance.
The next day Mr Bloggs rings up Insurance Company. This
time he is ringing on behalf of Bloggs Plant, his plant hire
company, for which he wants insurance. Insurance Company
asks Mr Bloggs what he thinks the value of his equipment
fleet is. Mr Bloggs scratches his head for a second and gives
Insurance Company his valuation. Insurance Company says
that the premium, based on Mr Bloggs’ valuation, will be so
much and sends Mr Bloggs his Certificate of Insurance for
his plant the next day.
In general terms insurers have no idea what plant and
equipment they are insuring. They have no idea whether
the equipment fleet which they have on cover even exists.
They have no idea whether the value they have been given
for the fleet which they are being asked to provide insurance
is accurate – this can lead to them being deliberately paid
less premium than they are owed by their clients. They
have no idea whether they or any other insurer has paid
a claim on any of the machines which they have on cover
– not that they know what they have on cover. They have
no idea whether any of the machines they have on cover
are registered as stolen (not all machines are insured so a
stolen machine may not necessarily have been subject to
an insurance claim).
Insurers should not just be encouraging the fitting of security
to equipment used by their clients by offering discounts on
theft excesses and premiums, they should, as a market, be
insisting on it and not providing insurance for equipment
which does not
meet specified
standards
of
security – eg.
unique key, linked
to an immobiliser,
tracking device,
site security etc.
Unfortunately, at present, insurers do not insist on security
standards for fear of losing business to competitors who
would not insist on them. When asked why the market
does not insist on standards across the board reference is
made to anti-cartel legislation and the Office of Fair Trading.
Perhaps this is not a particularly strong argument given that
improved security would impact on criminal financing and,
if a concerted effort were to be made by insurers and the
ABI, exemptions from existing legislation could be easily
overcome - if they even exist - with support from the
Government.
Following a theft it must be determined whether the item
which the client is claiming for was covered by the client’s
insurance and, if so, what the correct value for payment of
the claim is. It can be difficult to accurately ascertain from
the client the true identity of the stolen machine perhaps
because of poor record keeping, the use of fleet numbers to
identify machines not serial numbers or, at worst, because
the client or the plant hire company is being deliberately
misleading for fraudulent ends.
Trading/Auctions/Buyers
A recent survey estimated that there were around 750,000
used equipment transactions annually. With around 3,500
higher value items of equipment stolen annually and, at any
one time, around £200M of equipment which has been
stolen in the UK in circulation it is a sure-fire certainty
JOHN DEERE 6920
TRACTOR
False chassis number on John Deere 6920 Tractor
14
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
that criminals use the normal mechanisms of the market to
dispose of their ill-gotten gains. These sales opportunities
for criminals include the use of:
•
Plant and equipment auctions
•
Part exchange to dealers
•
Trade magazines
•
Private sales to equipment dealers
•
Private sales to end users
•
Internet auction sites
In general, while many criminals are very bold about theft,
they can be quite coy when it comes to stolen equipment
disposal. It is unusual that TER identifies the thief as the
person who has placed the equipment in an auction – though
there have been some exceptions. They usually have a cutout in between them and the point of disposal to enable
them to distance themselves from the ‘hot’ equipment, which
may or may not have had its identity changed. However,
this is clearly not the case when they dispose of machines
privately, often through small or classified ads in trade
publications or on the Internet.
There is no question about the use of auctions for the
disposal of stolen equipment. TER regularly identifies stolen
equipment entered into auctions and a number of items have
come to light having already been through an auction. Many
of the items entered have had their identities interfered
with or altered by the criminals to such an extent, and with
significant efforts to make the new identity as similar to the
manufacturer’s identity, that auction staff checking equipment
on arrival – not that
identity is a priority
for them and only
then inasmuch as
the machine may be
on finance – cannot
tell if what they are
looking at is a true identity. The identity looks OK on the
machine, it matches what the accompanying paperwork
says, and that, generally, is far as identity verification goes
for auctions.
Of course, with Internet auctions and sales there are often
no serial numbers to check, hardly any seller’s details listed
and the chances are that a private seller will bring the
machine to the purchaser or meet them in some kind of
neutral location, like a motorway service station or a pub
car park. TER identified £250,000 of stolen machines which
had all been sold through a well-known live auction website
by one party.
Sellers rarely list equipment serial numbers in trade
publications and there is no requirement for them to do so
by trade publications. Accurate listing of the serial numbers
allows increased transparency of the industry which will
assist in increasing the confidence of the purchasers.
Purchasers who are foolish enough to:
•
Buy from parties with whom they have never dealt
before, without any references
•
Buy from a car park, lay-by etc or, in many circumstances,
have the equipment delivered to them
•
Buy from someone with no VAT number, company name
or address, with only a mobile phone as a contact
•
Buy without checking that the equipment identity is
intact and that the identity has not been registered as
stolen by doing a TER Check
•
Buy for cash, for a lower price than the known market
value, with a receipt on the back of a fag packet…
…quite frankly are as bad as the criminals themselves
and TER relishes taking equipment off them on behalf of
the legitimate titleholders. They help to perpetuate the
equipment theft business and deserve to lose the stolen
equipment that they have greedily purchased, the monies that
CATERPILLAR TH360B
TELESCOPIC HANDLER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
25/02/2006 Halifax, West Yorkshire
03/05/2007 Holmfirth, West Yorkshire
£21,200
ACE Europe
15
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
they spent purchasing the machine, as well as be arrested
by the police for handling stolen goods, prosecuted by the
CPS, and convicted by a jury.
Police and law enforcement
Putting equipment crime in perspective is useful. It has
been reported that the annual cost of credit card fraud is
£500M+. Compared with the annual cost of equipment theft,
at worst £50M, it is, perhaps understandably, not as significant
a crime to law enforcement as those in the industries using
equipment (who care) would like it to be.
The Top 5 Police Forces Experiencing
Equipment Theft By Number and Value of Theft
No.Thefts %
Value (£)
%
Thames Valley
170
4.6
2,360,000
6.5
Kent
156
4.3
1,860,000
5.1
Surrey
138
3.8
2,357,000
6.4
Metropolitan
123
3.4
1,812,000
5.0
Hampshire
117
3.2
1,596,000
4.4
It is also important to note that the police are resourced
to deliver against the targets that they are set by the
Home Office and their Police Authority. Given that targets
inevitably lead to league tables it has been alleged that
policing has become a statistical numbers game where the
losers are actually the people that police officers themselves
want to help, the ordinary, decent law-abiding citizen and the
winners are the criminals who have access to the highest
priced legal advice, sometimes even legal aid, and who are
wrapped in a mantle of their ‘rights’. Even when these thieves
do get the opportunity to do some time in jail it has often
been reported in the media that they to manage to avoid
being relieved of their overseas bank accounts and continue
to manage their crime syndicates from within prison.
Operation UTAH. A multi-agency check on who is doing what on the
national roads network. Agencies include: the police, DVLA, Department of Work and Pensions, HM Courts Service, HM Revenue &
Customs (Road Fuels Testing Unit), the Environment Agency,Trading
Standards, UK Border Agency,VOSA and TER.
Clearly there are crimes which are more important that the
theft of plant and equipment which we would all rather the
police focused on before they dealt with the theft of a digger.
There are, however, a number of difficulties with plant and
equipment crime which are worth highlighting:
Most equipment crime is Level 2 (intra UK) and Level 3
(international) on the Police's National Intelligence Model.
(Level 1 crime being crime occurring within a single police
force’s area). So what?
A digger stolen in London is of interest to the Metropolitan
Police because it’s recovery and a resulting arrest represents
a clear up rate for the Metropolitan Police’s statistics. When
that machine turns up in another county that force would
rather their officers did not expend time, effort and money
on another county’s crime targets – this is a fairly brutal
assessment but it has an element of truth in it. Criminals, like
anyone else in the UK, hardly notice international borders
let alone UK county borders. In Europe one can drive
from Calais to Cracow or Boulougne to Brindisi without
so much as a passport showing, let alone anyone from law
enforcement pulling you over to examine
the load.
Vehicle Crime Squads. In the old
days every police force - all 50+ of
them - used to have a Stolen Vehicle
BOBCAT S300
SKID STEER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Owner:
16
23/06/2006 Chicago, U.S.A
12/12/2006 Poznan, Poland
£24,000
Citi Capital Commercial Corporation
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Squad manned with many experts in vehicle identification.
OK, plant and equipment was always the poor brother of
the motor car but it was just about on the radar. There
are now less than 5 Stolen Vehicle Squads in the UK, most
of them with two dedicated and interested officers and a
dog called Desperation. This gives an indication of the level
of resources that Chief Officers are giving to car related
crime now that we have around 30M vehicles on the roads
of the UK, especially given that a vehicle is used as an
enabler at some stage in most crimes. Where there was
some expertise in the police about plant and equipment,
there is now very limited knowledge because officers are
not focused on encountering it and so have little exposure
to identifying it.
Intelligence. Given the lack of focus on equipment
(vehicle) crime there is a consequent lack of intelligence on
who is doing it, how, from where and when. This makes the
targeting, if there were to be any, of equipment crime gangs
rather more difficult because of the lack of hard information
about them and their activities.
UK borders. The UK is a leaky sieve. We have a lot of law
enforcement agencies in our ports – no one is flying diggers
out of Stansted or Gatwick – but, for the most part, their
eyes are looking outwards at what is coming into the UK
rather then inwards at what is going out. With the high traffic
rates through ports such as Dover – around 9,000 trucks
cross the port daily – the level of checking on out-bound
freight is near zero. There are commercial issues in here too.
If the police were to halt and check every vehicle crossing a
port, and not at another nearby port, the traffic would switch
ports and the original port would lose money – it would not
be long before the local Chief Constable had a deputation
of port executives in his outer officer requesting that he
call off his troops. It remains to be seen whether the UK
Border Agency will have the policies, targets and resources
to address the export of stolen plant and equipment.
Government
From 1998-2006 the Home Office
ran a number of committees
looking at aspects of vehicle crime.
One of these was the Plant Theft
Action Group (PTAG). In 2006 the
statistics showed that the Government had achieved the aim
of a 30% reduction in vehicle crime and the Home Office
withdrew from the committees that it had set up – resources
were being redirected to counter-terrorism.
The Home Office sets targets for Chief Constables. Plant
and equipment crime is not a target.
Security companies
There are a plethora of
companies which provide
security solutions for plant
and equipment. Some
solutions are completely
soluble and just require a
drain to pour them down,
but there are also good ideas out there which have been
brought to life as imaginative commercial products which
do what they say on the tin. The only problem then is the
institutional indifference of the plant and equipment marketplace to purchasing and fitting them.
The issues with these companies are:
•
Products are generally not as reliable for the plant and
equipment market as their sellers claim because they
are technically weak or not robust enough
•
There is a proliferation of companies providing a range of
devices using a spectrum of technologies which confuses
the market
INTERPOL
COURSE
TER provided a plant and equipment awareness and identification presentation
and practical at Interpol’s vehicle crime course in Cyprus. Officers from Greece,
Italy, Finland, the UK and Interpol’s HQ in Lyon, France attended.
17
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
•
Many of the companies are small and, unfortunately, they
fail as businesses
•
A number of poor experiences with technologies that
have failed, and companies which have rolled over along
with their unfulfilled promises, have conspired to give
the security device industry a bad name within the plant
and equipment industry.
Media
with cars having to have an MOT by law, still, after all this
effort, approaching 400,000 vehicles are stolen annually in
the UK!
That aside, it would be quite interesting reading, and
educational for all, if the press ran tests on the ease with
which a range of equipment can be stolen. It could be called
the ‘bent nail’ test.
Criminals
The media find the work of
TER’s sister company The Art
Loss Register (ALR), registering
and recovering stolen art and
antiquities, a little more interesting
than they do digger theft and
recovery! However, the industry
press, particularly the construction
industry press, have continually given a fair wind to the
issue of equipment theft and how best the construction
industry should deal with it – not to say that the coverage
has delivered much improvement in the industry’s attitude.
Perhaps the media coverage reflects their readers’ views
or maybe it is just that some of the theft stories are so
audacious and unbelievable that they make as good copy as
some of the stolen equipment recovery stories.
It is interesting to note the role that the car and truck media
played in the improvements made in vehicle security by
producing tables on the amount of time it took a criminal
to break into each make of car and drive it away. These
tables combined with consumer pressure and sticks and
carrots from the insurance industry forced car makers to
address the ease with which criminals stole cars. Even so,
with immobilisers fitted to cars by law, with cars having
to be insured by law, with cars having to be registered
with the DVLA and taxed for use on the road by law, and
The phrase making hay while the sun shines springs
to mind.
Imagine, just for a moment, that you are a criminal – and this
is not incitement to theft – just a fair account of the every
day life of one of our equipment criminals…
You have been working in the plant hire business for a few
years and you have trained as a fitter. You know how to
drive and maintain, lift and shift a whole range of equipment.
You’ve got a wide range of contacts in the industry from
traders and dealers to hauliers and shippers. Business hasn’t
been so good recently with the downturn in the building
industry and yet every day you are surrounded by machines
each worth tens of thousands of pounds – just a couple
of machines would solve the mortgage, outstanding debts,
a holiday in the sun and the wife’s insane desire for new
clothes. Having made a few calls you decide to steal a brace
of £40,000 telehandlers, which are the flavour of the month
in the used equipment trade, from a site on a new industrial
park you noticed recently on the outskirts of town. A quick
recce that evening
shows that there is no
site security, no fencing
and no one about. The
next evening you go
back with a mate and
KOMATSU WA200-5
LOADING SHOVEL
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Owner:
18
19/10/2007 Wandsworth, London
17/12/2007 Harwich, Essex
£40,000
Hanson Aggregates
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
a low loader. After a quick look around you put on your
hi-vis jacket and walk deliberately across to the machines.
A cursory glance over the machines shows that there is no
additional security, but then you didn’t expect to see any. You
jump in, start it up using the universal key that you already
have for your job as a fitter and drive the machine onto the
low loader. While your mate secures it down you jog back
across to the second machine and load it up. In less then
ten minutes you have stolen £80,000 of equipment.
Pressing £500 in cash into his hand, your mate drops you
off a couple of miles down the road before driving off to
the ro-ro ferry port. Less than four hours after the theft
your mate and the two stolen machines hit the auto route in
France for the second part of the long journey to an eastern
European country where you have arranged for a contact to
sell the machines on your behalf. A week later you receive a
call from your overseas bank to let you know that £50,000
has been deposited into your account that morning.
•
When the criminal came up the telehandlers there was
no security which stopped him from getting in, starting
up and driving them onto the low loader
•
The low loader was not stopped by the police at any time
as it drove on the national roads network to the port
•
There were no outbound checks on the driver or the
machines at the port
•
The 'innocent' purchaser in Eastern Europe gave no thought
to any pre-purchase due diligence on the telehandlers.
They were a very good price and the seller had a number
of other buyers lined up, he wanted a decision quickly and
he wanted cash. The deal was done.
Back at the industrial site on the edge of town, there was a
collective groan when the team came into work the following
morning. They rang the police but as no one came out
they reported the details of the theft over the phone and
received a log number from the police. As they did not have
the machine serial numbers, only the hirer’s fleet numbers
were reported to the police. Seven weeks later their insurer
paid out £80,000 to the plant hirer.
In this reasonable account of a typical equipment theft, where
and what are the opportunities to hinder and prevent the
criminal from carrying out his actions?
Perhaps the following were the key points:
•
It wasn’t the machine security, or lack of it, which first
attracted our criminal, it was the wet paper bag level of
security on the site
MANITOU MT1233S
TELESCOPIC HANDLER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
16/05/2003 Brentwood, Essex.
30/01/2007 County Kerry, Ireland
£17,600
ACE Europe
19
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
The Virtuous Circle
Criminals
Deny access
Prohibit sale
Identify operations
Dismantle gangs
Recover stolen plant and equipment
Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) action
Secure convictions
Media
Raise profile of plant theft
Equipment security assessments
Security Companies
Provide robust, costeffective solutions
Government
Include plant and equipment
theft in Government targets
to police
Police/Law Enforcement
Understand equipment I/D
Address data quality on PNC
Regular plant focus
Better intelligence
20
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Manufacturers
Unique key
Immobiliser
Dead locks
Tracking device
Register new with TER
Dealers
TER Check before buying used equipment
Register new with TER
Report thefts to TER
After-sales security
Owners
Register with TER
Use TER Check before buying
used equipment
Fit after sales security
CPA
Users
Vastly improve site security
Know what is hired
Trade Associations
Insist on members
adhering to the code of
practice set out in this
virtuous circle
Traders/Auctions
TER Check before buying/selling
FLA
ABI
BMIA
Banks
TER Check before buying
Register what is owned with TER
Insurers
TER Check before insuring
Know what is being insured
Register insured equipment with TER
21
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
How Equipment Theft Funds Further Crime and Causes Harm to Society
Society & The Business World
THEFT
Anywhere in the UK, Northern Ireland and overseas
VICTIMS
Equipment Owners & Users.
Insurers & Banks - Business disruption, claims handling and replacing stolen equipment.
Criminal Enterprise
Opportunist
Serious Organised
Terrorist
National Intelligence Model Level 1
National Intelligence Model Level 2 & 3
National Intelligence Model Level 2 & 3
Funding for:
Distraction Burglary
Funding Serious
Organised Crime
Theft
Armed Robbery
House Breaking
Racketeering
Assault
Money & Fuel Laundering
Alcohol, Drugs, Tobacco
and Fuel Smuggling
Prostitution
Funding Terrorism
In addition to those used under
Serious Organised crime, use of
plant and equipment as:
• Covert Vehicle Borne
Improvised Explosive Device
(VBIED)
• Covert means of smuggling
arms and explosives
Re-identification
Fence*
(* An illegal means whereby stolen property is sold into quasi-legitimate/legitimate markets.)
DISPOSAL
Anywhere in the UK, Northern Ireland and overseas
FURTHER VICTIMS
Innocent purchasers of stolen equipment. Banks financing stolen equipment.
Insurance companies insuring stolen equipment.
Further Harm to Society
22
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
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.
BOMAG BW120AD-4
ROLLER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
06/10/2007 from Escrick, North Yorkshire
07/11/2007 Moerdijk, Holland
£15,000
Royal & Sun Alliance
23
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Stolen equipment recovery, the art of the impossible made possible
It remains a staggering statistic that only 5% of that which
is stolen is ever recovered.
Perhaps the fact that 10% of TER’s own recoveries in 2007
were made overseas points to one line of criminal disposal
that requires further exploitation over the coming year. All
stolen plant and equipment recovered overseas has left
the UK through a port, perhaps in the back of a truck, on
a curtain-sided trailer, in a container or on the back of a
low loader. It would be useful to extend the remit of those
law enforcement officers in UK ports, perhaps via the UK
Borders Agency, to spend more time examining outbound
freight as the ultimate cost of these illegal exports is to UK
Plc. It would also generate intelligence and the recovery of
stolen property.
A further useful line of activity leading to recoveries has been
the use of the TER Check service by potential purchasers and
auctions. A number of stolen machines have been matched
by TER and, where possible, these have been followed up
to convert the match into a stolen equipment recovery on
behalf of an owner or insurer often with the close support
of a Police Force. As more of the market realises that the
trade in stolen plant and equipment merely perpetuates the
plant theft problem and the poor reputation of the trade,
they will want to use the TER Check to verify and validate
equipment trades. Closing down the criminal routes to the
disposal of stolen assets and preventing the conversion of an
asset into cash will further restrict criminal opportunity for
profit. It also yields intelligence which can help to identify
individuals and lead to arrests and convictions.
TER continues to offer to the police and to law
enforcement agencies our free Plant & Equipment
Identification Guide along with posters, newsletters and
equipment crime awareness and specialist identification
briefings to create awareness of the issues and to provide
the toolkit for action.
The following types of equipment were
recovered by TER in support of the police in 2007
Trailers ....................................................35%
Excavators...............................................27%
Telehandlers............................................23%
Rollers........................................................4%
Dumpers ...................................................2%
Tractors .....................................................2%
Other .........................................................7%
Total.......................................................100%
BY MANUFACTURER
By Manufacturer
By %
Ifor Williams ...........................................34%
JCB...........................................................22%
Caterpillar.................................................9%
Manitou .....................................................7%
Hitachi .......................................................5%
Benford......................................................3%
Other .......................................................20%
Total.......................................................100%
BY POLICE FORCE
Equipment recoveries were made by TER
in support of the following police forces:
Surrey ......................................................14%
West Yorkshire........................................11%
International ...........................................10%
Essex ..........................................................7%
West Mercia..............................................4%
West Midlands ..........................................4%
Other .......................................................50%
Total.......................................................100%
BOMAG BW 120AD-4
ROLLER
False Bomag BW120AD-4 Roller
stamped-in chassis number
24
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
TER's Statistics
Lies, damn lies and statistics
The following pages contain the distilled statistical data on the numbers for 2007.
The TER database represents a fascinating data-mining opportunity to drill down
into some of the nuggety truths about the state of equipment theft in the UK.
JCB 3CX
BACKHOE LOADER
Stolen:
Recovered:
Value:
Insurer:
15/08/2007 Antalya, Turkey
25/09/2007 Moerdijk, Holland
£25,000
Aksigorta A.S. Insurance, Istanbul,
Turkey
2525
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Theft Data : 2007 Equipment Thefts Registered with TER by Police Force
Police Force
No of Thefts
% change on 2006
Value (£)
Most stolen items
England
Avon & Somerset
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Cheshire
City of London
Cleveland
Cumbria
Derbyshire
Devon & Cornwall
Dorset
Durham
Dyfed-Powys
Essex
Gloucestershire
Greater Manchester Police
Gwent
Hampshire
Hertfordshire
Humberside
Kent
Lancashire
Leicestershire
Lincolnshire
Merseyside
Metropolitan
Norfolk
Northamptonshire
Northumbria
North Wales
North Yorkshire
Nottinghamshire
South Wales
South Yorkshire
Staffordshire
Suffolk
Surrey
Sussex
Thames Valley Police
Warwickshire
West Mercia
West Midlands
West Yorkshire
Wiltshire
67
29
37
75
0
4
10
49
70
47
38
18
92
30
93
15
117
65
51
156
83
60
64
26
123
15
44
26
40
80
53
33
76
53
32
138
107
170
63
104
59
111
44
16%
61%
-33%
3%
0%
400%
-55%
-4%
-7%
42%
-54%
-67%
-20%
0%
26%
0%
23%
-12%
122%
17%
-31%
2%
-10%
-40%
-30%
-53%
-30%
-24%
54%
-25%
26%
13%
-40%
4%
3%
-20%
6%
6%
21%
5%
-24%
23%
10%
469,000
230,000
296,000
660,000
0
20,000
26,000
383,000
133,000
164,000
304,000
110,000
1,645,000
204,000
753,000
82,000
1,596,000
1,000,000
618,000
1,860,000
835,000
795,000
689,000
342,000
1,812,000
65,000
515,000
85,000
32,000
756,000
491,000
408,000
690,000
335,000
682,000
2,357,000
1,250,000
2,360,000
988,000
557,000
463,000
1,277,000
496,000
17 Trailers, 14 Excavators, 6 Tractors, 2 Telehandlers
8 Trailers, 6 Excavators, 4 Dumpers
8 Rollers, 7 Excavators, 7 Trailers, 3 Telehandlers
28 Trailers, 13 Excavators, 7 Dumpers
Central
Dumfries & Galloway
Fife
Grampian
Lothian & Borders
Northern
Strathclyde
Tayside
6
3
9
16
19
0
42
18
-50%
-166%
50%
23%
-49%
-100%
-22%
0%
50,000
20,000
150,000
71,000
191,000
0
601,000
66,000
2 Excavators, 2 Trailers, 1 Roller
1 Excavator, 1 Quad Bike, 1 Trailer
2 Tractors, 1 Excavator
8 Trailers, 4 Excavators
4 Excavators, 4 Trailers, 2 Telehandlers
1 Hammer
14 Excavators, 6 Trailers, 3 Quad Bikes, 3 Rollers
Northern Ireland
42
-21%
741,000
15 Excavators, 10 Trailers, 5 Dumpers, 3 Telehandlers
Republic of Ireland
25
-64%
304,000
16 Trailers, 3 Telehandlers, 2 Excavators
3
780
50%
103%
48,000
5,500,000
3,630
2%
36,575,000
1 Roller, 1 Trailer
6 Trailers, 1 Excavator, 1 Roller, 1 Quad Bike
18 Trailers, 10 Excavators, 7 Dumpers, 5 Quad Bikes
26 Trailers, 6 Dumpers, 6 Breakers, 4 Excavators
8 Excavators, 6 Trailers, 6 Quad Bikes
13 Trailers, 8 Caravans, 2 Tractors, 1 Telehandler
5 Trailers, 3 Excavators, 2 Telehandlers
32 Excavators, 12 Dumpers, 10 Telehandlers
11 Trailers, 6 Excavators, 5 Quad Bikes
24 Excavators, 19 Trailers, 10 Dumpers, 8 Generators
55 Excavators, 21 Trailers, 5 Tractors, 5 Dumpers, 4 Telehandlers
24 Excavators, 13 Dumpers, 11 Trailers, 5 Telehandlers
16 Excavators, 16 Trailers, 3 Telehandlers
47 Excavators, 20 Dumpers, 5 Tractors, 4 Telehandlers
26 Trailers, 15 Excavators, 12 Dumpers, 11 Telehandlers
16 Rollers, 13 Excavators, 9 Trailers, 8 Dumpers, 4 Telehandlers
21 Trailers, 13 Excavators, 6 Rollers, 2 Telehandlers, 2 Tractors
13 Excavators, 5 Trailers
36 Excavators, 18 Dumpers, 16 Telehandlers, 11 Breakers
10 Trailers, 1 Telehandler
13 Trailers, 11 Excavators, 5 Quad Bikes, 4 Telehandlers
18 Trailers, 1 Excavator
18 Trailers, 5 Breakers
17 Trailers, 16 Excavators, 10 Quad Bikes, 8 Tractors, 4 Telehandlers
17 Excavators, 8 Trailers, 5 Dumpers, 5 Fork Lift Trucks
7 Trailers, 4 Telehandlers, 4 Excavators
20 Excavators, 14 Rollers, 12 Trailers, 8 Dumpers, 4 Telehandlers
21 Trailers, 9 Excavators, 4 Telehandlers
8 Trailers, 3 Excavators, 1 Crusher, 1 Loading Shovel
44 Excavators, 29 Trailers, 22 Dumpers, 16 Telehandlers
38 Excavators, 22 Trailers, 8 Telehandlers, 7 Rollers, 6 Quad Bikes
60 Excavators, 26 Trailers, 24 Telehandlers, 16 Dumpers, 6 Tractors
19 Excavators, 6 Quad Bikes, 5 Dumpers, 4 Telehandlers
46 Trailers, 16 Quad Bikes, 8 Excavators, 4 Tractors
17 Excavators, 14 Trailers, 8 Rollers, 4 Dumpers
28 Excavators, 22 Trailers, 16 Dumpers, 13 Telehandlers, 13 Rollers
14 Trailers, 4 Excavators, 3 Tractors, 3 Telehandlers
Scotland
British Transport Police
Other
Totals
26
2 Excavators, 1 Telehandler
Items reported without a location
Average value of stolen equipment items £10,100
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Theft Data
Most Stolen Equipment in 2007
Most Stolen Equipment
by Manufacturer
By Make & Model
Ifor Williams
1,001 Trailers
Horseboxes
Low Mounted (LM)
Tipping Trailer (TT)
General Duty (GD)
JCB
395 Machines
Telehandlers
Mini Excavators
Backhoe Loaders
Benford
164 Machines
1 tonne Dumpers
Rollers
Bomag
151 Rollers
BW80 series
BW120 series
By Equipment Type
Takeuchi
133 Excavators
TB016 series
TB125 series
TB175 series
TB014 series
29
24
18
14
Kubota
118 Machines
KX36 series
K008
27
17
53
42
Volvo
98 Machines
EC15 series
EC25 series
29
28
65
31
Caterpillar
75 Machines
Mini Excavators
Telehandlers
27
18
265
210
127
105
119
99
79
Manufacturer
Ifor Williams
JCB
Benford
Bomag
Takeuchi
Kubota
Stihl
Volvo
Caterpillar
Wacker
Thwaites
Atlas Copco
Honda
Hitachi
Terex
Bobcat
Manitou
John Deere
Yanmar
Indespension
Ingersoll Rand
Yamaha
Kawasaki
Timberwolf
Case
New Holland
Massey Ferguson
Other
Number
1,001
395
164
151
133
118
113
98
75
71
69
69
65
49
45
42
40
39
32
32
28
28
22
19
17
10
9
696
Total
3,630
Historical Theft Data (2000 to 2007)
Year
No. of
Thefts
Value
(£)
Average
Value (£)
2007
3,630
36,575,000
10,100
2006
3,545
31,500,000
8,900
2005
4,324
43,000,000
9,800
2004
3,595
38,000,000
10,200
2003
3,579
35,090,000
9,800
2002
3,149
27,500,000
8,700
2001
2,774
20,500,000
7,400
2000
2,782
21,000,000
7,500
Total
27,378
253,165,000
No. of
Thefts
£43m
£35.1m
£38m
£27.5m
£21m
£20.5m
Year
27
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Most Stolen Equipment in 2007
By Value
Other Items
660 Stolen £8,887,000
Trailers
1097 Stolen
£2,547,000
Fork Lifts
33 Stolen
£340,000
Tractors Compressors
74 Stolen
62 Stolen
£1,478,000
£372,000
Breakers
148 Stolen
£545,000
Generators
65 Stolen
£488,000
Rollers
192 Stolen
£1,682,000
Quad Bikes Telehandlers Dumpers
122 Stolen
184 Stolen
253 Stolen
£446,000
£5,201,000
£2,475,000
Excavators
740 Stolen
£12,114,000
Stolen Equipment By Type, Number,Value & Police Force
No of
Thefts
% of
UK Theft
% change
on 2006
Value
(£)
%
By Value
By Police Force
Most
2nd
3rd
Trailers
1097
30.2%
22%
2,547,000
7.0%
West Mercia
Surrey
Cheshire
Excavators
740
20.4%
-7%
12,114,000
33.1%
Thames Valley
Hampshire
Kent
Dumpers
253
7.0%
9%
2,475,000
6.8%
Surrey
Kent
Metropolitan
Telehandlers
184
5.1%
76%
5,201,000
14.2%
Thames Valley
Surrey, Metropolitan
Quad Bikes
Rollers
122
3.4%
-53%
446,000
1.2%
West Mercia
North Yorkshire
Dorset
192
5.3%
-4%
1,682,000
4.6%
Leicestershire
West Midlands
N.Yorkshire, Sussex
Generators
65
1.8%
2%
488,000
1.3%
North Yorkshire Thames Valley
Breakers
148
4.1%
-6%
545,000
1.5%
Compressors
62
1.7%
22%
372,000
1.0%
Tractors
74
2.0%
-25%
1,478,000
4.0%
Fork Lift Trucks
33
1.0%
-30%
340,000
0.9%
Other
660
18.0%
8,887,000
24.4%
Total
3,630
100.0%
36,575,000
100.0%
Kent
JCB 3CX
BACKHOE LOADER
False JCB 3CX Backhoe Loader plate
28
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Data Sources
There are more than 600,000 owned equipment items registered with TER, valued at in excess of £3.0BN.
There are more than 55,000 insurance registered thefts on TER’s database valued at in excess of £250M.
TER holds, and cleanses part of, 56,000 police equipment theft records.
Theft data supplied in this report came from:
Ownership data supplied in this report came from:
•
Police and law enforcement officers
•
•
The Police National Computer (PNC)
•
Insurers:
ACE Europe, Animal Insurance Management Services,
Allianz Cornhill, Allianz Cornhill Engineering, AXA
Insurance, Chubb Insurance, CIS Insurance, E&L
Insurance, Eagle Star Insurance, Ecclesiastical Insurance
Group, Equity Red Star, Groupama Insurance, HSB
Haughton Engineering Insurance Services, Illium, Mitsui
Sumitomo, NFU Mutual Insurance, NIG, Norwich Union,
Quinn Insurance, RBSI, Royal & Sun Alliance, SAGA,
Scottish Equestrian, Stoneways Insurance, Zurich
Engineering, Zurich Insurance, Zurich Municipal
•
The Motor Insurance Anti-Fraud and Theft Register
(MIAFTR)
•
Banks
•
Plant and equipment owners
Manufacturers:
JCB, Caterpillar, Liebherr, Manitou, Kubota and Ifor
Williams Trailers
TER will pass theft data concerning their make to any
manufacturer registering new and used equipment sales
with TER
•
TER subscribers
•
Banks
Answer to question on page 10 - both 8s were 3s.
BUMPING
AND GRINDING
This shows where the criminal has ground and restamped
the king-post of a Kubota KH36 excavator
29
2008
ANNUAL REPORT
Europe’s Leading Resource for
Equipment Registration and Recovery
The National Plant & Equipment Register
Bath & West Buildings, Lower Bristol Road
Bath, BA2 3EG United Kingdom
Email: [email protected]
www.ter-europe.org
Visit us at www.ter-europe.org
Register Equipment and Thefts Online
Carry out Equipment Identification Checks
Find out more about TER’s range of services
Graphic Design : The Design Workshop : www.designworkshop.co.uk
Tel: 01225 464599 Fax: 01225 317698

Leading the fight against plant theft

Transcription

Similar documents

Procedures and Practices when dealing withTheft in the Workplace

Form 990 for GLADWYNE MONTESSORI SCHOOL (23

Don`t hatchet your counts before they

272280 jan 08 nl-ngfcu - National Geographic Federal Credit Union

Identity Theft and Fraud

Town Map - Town of Glovertown

Teichert Construction Theft - Construction Industry Crime Prevention

April

Identity Theft