Consider the following:
1. The number of vehicles being stolen. Apparently, as of 2024, this is on the increase, up by 30% or more in the past 5 years – subject to who you ask. There is inconsistency – some of the figures can be viewed here.
However there is inconsistency, misunderstanding and a general lack of detailed information. Read more here.
2. Stolen vehicle values. These are obviously higher today than at the height of car thefts some 20-odd years ago. As theft numbers tumbled from the half-million/annum we were self-congratulatory. But are we any better off now?
Some simple math’, using rough figures for illustration purposes, suggests not:
| Year | Annual Number of Vehicle Thefts | Average Vehicle Value | Total Value of Vehicles Stolen |
| 2000 | 500,000 | £5,000 | £2,500 million |
| 2023 | 130,000 | £20,000 | £2,600 million |
The above gives a ‘feel’ for the problem. Possibly, all we ever did was design-out the simplistic, opportunist thefts without ever affecting the ‘professional & organised’ as these thieves now appear to be flatteringly described. Add to these woes:
3. Recovery Rates. Some 20 years ago, ‘joy riding’ was rife; stealing vehicles was easy and they were taken without the ‘intention to permanently deprive‘. Stolen, or ‘taken without consent’ (TWOC) vehicles were abandoned, located and returned to the owner. As for the recovery rate then, figures are once again thin on the ground. One constabulary reported recoveries being as high as 80% but more commonly this was cited as being about 60% to 70%. Good news for victims and insurers.
But recovery rates have been reducing and the affect is demonstrated here:
| Year | Total Value of Vehicles Stolen | Recovery Percentage | Total Loss – based upon average value of unrecovered vehicle |
| 2000 | £2,500 million | 65% | £875 million |
| 2023 | £2,600 million | 50% | £1,300 million |
Continuing the ‘figures for demonstration purposes’ approach, in 2023 we would be £425 million worse off than in 2000. The figure maybe much worse. In 2022, Kent constabulary advised a recovery rate of just 6%; incredibly, they only found about 1 in every 20 stolen vehicles! Furthermore, there is another factor to consider:
4. The condition of a vehicle at recovery. ‘Good news!’, your vehicle has been located. ‘Bad news’ … we have only found its shell.
Currently less vehicles are being found intact or ‘as was’ (at date & time of theft). More vehicles are ‘recovered’ but only as bits of the original, possibly at a chop-shop or a ‘graveyard’ of shells in a field (as examples). However, these vehicles are marked as ‘recovered’. This is distorting figures, giving a positive impression. From a victim and/or insurer perspective, locating such components makes them no better off; the vehicle is still a total loss, worthless.
To these ‘recovery’ numbers add:
5. Recoveries that never were. these may make up a small number but, again, who knows the extent of the problem? Overstretch a constabulary and mistakes will occur. An archaic police process referred to as ‘weeding‘ sees the LoS (lost or stolen) marker against a VRM (vehicle regsitration mark) on the PNC (police national computer) automatically fall off if the crime is not ‘confirmed’ within 6 weeks (read more here). This is likely distorting figures. A failure to ‘confirm’ the report of crime causes the stolen marker to fall away; a stolen vehicle appears to have been recovered but has not been. A check of the VRM will reveal ‘not recorded stolen’. Accordingly, the chances of recovery are greatly reduced, if not nil. The process assists no one but the criminals.
The vehicle theft problem has been known for years. In 2019, the crime was out of hand, could no longer be ignored, though it seems, after some rhetoric, it was:
- The Vehicle Crimes Taskforce, created due to the issue, promptly fizzled out.
- In 2019, it was also known that better crime recording was needed. But this has not occurred.
- The ‘blame game’ and distraction has been successfully employed; manufacturers are apparently the villains, accused of creating ‘security vulnerabilities’. How soon we forget manufacturers were and remain, in some respects, the hero of the piece.
- ‘Partnerships’ have not materialised. Various parties have seemingly found ways not to assist, whilst giving the pretence of concern and cooperation.
- A blind eye has been turned to vehicle theft; platitudes uttered, assurances provided. Yet either nothing has been done or what was undertaken failed, abysmally.
- The terms ‘professional’ and ‘organised’ are no longer associated with the police but with the criminals.
- ‘Keyless theft‘ is the new excuse for ‘what do you expect us to do?’
- Vehicle theft is considered low priority.
This ‘security bypass’ methodology has also superseded previous excuses enabling some crimes to be downgraded to ‘vehicle theft’, as opposed to burglary. The former is likely neither performance indicator nor priority thus engaging the third ‘P’, proportionality; record the crime, place to the PNC LoS register, tell the victim you will check ANPR (you might, but why?) then sit back and wait …
Could it be that this unique, valuable, item of property, left in the open, is perceived by many as a ‘must be insured’ commodity and therefore “so what if someone nicks it?”; the owner will not lose out because their insurer will compensate them. An insurance company will step into the victim’s shoes and take the loss on the chin – after all, insurers are in the risk business, they factor in losses just as a supermarket may do for shoplifting or other industries for ‘wastage’ or ‘leakage’. The victim’s distress, inconvenience and financial losses (excess on loss of NCB, for example) overlooked as are the criminal benefits.
Taking all the above into consideration, it will probably be understood that the number of insurance claims being presented and progressed is increasing; more vehicles are being taken, less are being found and returned to the victim in an ‘as was’ condition. You may believe that, having failed (for want of a better word) to find a stolen vehicle, the police would do their utmost to assist a victim to obtain settlement, closure. Think again!