|
|
|
Construction Plant TheftWed, September 19, 2001Source: Alaster Smith, Ruth WalmsleyThe Nature And Extent Of Construction Plant Theft Policing & Reducing Crime Briefing NoteSummary The
theft of construction equipment (termed ‘plant’) has been estimated to cost the
UK between £600 million and £1 billion per year. The problem was thought to be
getting worse, but little data existed to confirm or disprove this. This
research set out to ascertain the nature and scale of such theft in
1997. The
research was conducted in two parts. First, a ‘user’ survey of companies likely
to use plant was carried out to estimate the amount of plant in use and its
prevalence of theft. The second stage involved a survey of people who had
reported equipment stolen in 1997, asking about the nature of the theft _ the
location and time of theft and the security in use. Main
findings Equipment
theft rates and cost The
research estimated that in 1997, just over 24,000 items of mobile plant were
stolen, of which fewer than 10% were recovered. This plant had a theft risk of
26 per 1000, considerably higher than for road-going vehicles over the same
period (18 per 1000). It was found that, generally, the smaller the plant the
higher the risk of theft. The
depreciated cost of the stolen equipment was estimated to amount to
£66Z\v
million.
While this figure is only a tenth of that commonly cited as the cost of plant
theft, it does not account for replacement costs, loss of business, insurance
premium increases and a range of other costs arising from the theft. Location
of theft The
majority of the stolen plant was located in urban areas (industrial, residential
and shopping) at the time of theft. Most equipment was taken from building and
construction sites, or depots and company parking areas, but 15% of the
equipment was reported stolen from the roadside. Financial
cost to victims Almost
two-thirds (63%) of the victims who owned the plant stolen bought new plant, 30%
hiring replacement equipment. Over 80% of those who had hired the plant stolen
hired more equipment. Only 6% of the respondents reported being unable to
replace the plant. Slightly over a third of the respondents reported loss of
revenue as a consequence of the theft. Plant
security Surprisingly
little equipment security was reported. Fewer than two-thirds of the respondents
reported recording the serial numbers on their equipment. Very few reported
using any type of alarm or immobiliser, and only 22% reported using a padlock
and chain to secure equipment. Location
security At 20% of the building sites that equipment was stolen from, no
security was reported to be used. Sites had fenced compounds in 40% of cases,
but lockable gates were reported in only 23% of the thefts. Even where gates
were locked, they were broken or lifted off their hinges in many cases. Depots
had much better security; 23% reported having CCTV, 27% having security
lighting, 23% of premises being alarmed and a further 18% having security guards
who patrolled the site. Points
for action Tackling
plant theft effectively is likely to involve a variety of groups. While the
police clearly have a part to play in tackling this crime, manufacturers, owners
and operators all have a critical role in improving the security of this
equipment. For the police
For plant manufacturers
For security device manufacturers
For plant owners
For plant operators
For insurers
|
|
