Skip to content

Car Crime U.K.

who knows, who cares?

Menu
  • Events Timeline
  • Stolen Vehicle Info’
    • ‘Form A Squad’ – Ineffective Action
      • The Vehicle Crime Task Force (VCT) – 2019
      • 2022 to 2023 National Vehicle Crime Working Group
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found in the U.K.
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found Abroad
    • OPERATION IGNEOUS – reducing reported car theft by 30%
  • Collision & Crime Reports
    • Police Theft Reports
    • Police Collision Reports
    • Police Disclosure Delays
  • Resources
    • Your Vehicle Theft Insurance Claim
    • Police Contacts
  • News
  • Interesting & Reference
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
  • Contact
Menu

Increase Pre-Crush Retention Period to 28 days?

Posted on July 20, 2025July 20, 2025 by 5@mwosb.co.uk

Crushing e-bikes after 7 days: meaningful action or media soundbite?

The West Midlands PCC wants to halve the time before seized e-bikes and e-scooters are destroyed — from 14 days to 7. But does this change make a difference?

A closer look at the Commissioner’s 17(?) claimed benefits reveals a common theme: most of these outcomes already occur once a vehicle is seized, not when it’s crushed.

Crushing is not the problem, enforcement is. To be clear: the unlawful use of e-bikes and e-scooters is a growing problem, and one that deserves focused attention. But the emphasis here seems misplaced. Crushing alone does not prevent reoffending, particularly if offenders do not believe their bikes will ever be seized in the first place. The real deterrent lies in visible, consistent enforcement.

Seizure is the penalty. Crushing is just the aftermath.

This policy feels more symbolic than strategic. If enforcement is the real issue, should we focus on making seizure consistent, visible, and effective, rather than simply speeding up destruction?

And with the high value of these vehicles, are we missing an opportunity to make seizure cost-neutral or even community-beneficial?

Can Seizure Be More Than Just Destruction?

E-bikes and scooters are not cheap. Rather than racing to destroy them, could there be a smarter way to handle these seizures?

  • Could vehicles be repurposed or resold, where legal and appropriate?
  • Could offenders be made to bear the storage costs, turning seizure into a meaningful fine?
  • Could seized vehicles fund road safety or youth engagement programmes, creating a cycle of reinvestment?

In a time of limited resources and rising public scrutiny, every policy needs to prove its value, not just its visibility.

We need meaningful action, not media soundbites.

The recent call by the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner to halve the holding time for seized vehicles may sound decisive, but does it actually change anything?

This policy appears more about visibility than value: a solution searching for a problem, with little evidence of real impact. We should expect leadership grounded in substance, not short-term headlines – again!


Do the Commissioner’s 17(?) arguments for crushing stand up – or should we increase the pre-crush retention period? Read more here

20/07/2025 – How e-bike riders are doing double the speed limit – and many of them work for fast food delivery firms (Sky News).

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts:

  • Crime Reports – Copies of ‘Consent’
  • Thefts Down – Except for Newer Cars!
  • Increase Pre-Crush Retention Period to 28 days?
  • Reducing Vehicle Theft by up to 30%
  • ‘The Others’ … are you among them?
  • Vehicle Abandonments Raise Questions Over Theft Claims
  • The State of Vehicle Taking in the UK: A Crisis of Enforcement, Not Engineering
  • Keystone Krooks – but £1.4 million stolen!
  • 2024 Vehicle Theft – how well (or otherwise) did your constabulary perform?
  • Vehicle Crime. Is Police Language Bluring Facts?
  • Superficial Approach to Vehicle Taking Overlooked Organised Crime
  • Keyless Vehicle Taking – Really?
  • Accuracy & Consistency Required
  • Do we need new legislation?
  • A System Built on Blind Faith? The Flaws in Police Information Dissemination
  • Which? … What?
  • The Rise & Fall of Operation Igneous
  • Vehicle Taking – Quantity not Quality
  • Vehicle Theft: 30 years of Complacency
  • The Devalued Crime Report
  • Vehicle Theft Surge Demands Police Action on Crime Report Disclosures
  • FoIA – Staffordshire Police are not the worst offenders
  • Vehicle Repatriation
  • Crime Number Devaluation
  • Manufacturers Cause Vehicle Thefts …
  • PNC LoS Report Weeding
  • Staff-less-shire Police Report Disclosures
  • W. Mercia Police – RTC Report Disclosures
  • Delaying Finalisation of Insurance Claims (for some)
  • Policing (or not?) Vehicle Theft
  • Fraud Not Theft … face the facts!
  • Cloned Plates: Register of Keepers – Lacking Integrity?
  • Police Theft Report Disclosure
  • Headlamp Dazzle & Eye-Snatching
  • Scrap ‘six-week weeding’ of stolen vehicle VRMs
  • Police Vehicle Theft Reports – A Lack Of Understanding And Standardisation

Legal Disclaimer
The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the content, laws and regulations change frequently, and the application of legal principles varies based on specific circumstances.

No Legal Advice
Nothing on this website constitutes legal, financial, or professional advice. You should not rely on the information provided here as a substitute for seeking qualified legal counsel. If you require legal advice or guidance, we strongly recommend consulting a licensed solicitor or legal professional.

No Liability
We make every effort to keep the information up to date and accurate, but we do not guarantee the completeness, correctness, or applicability of any content. We accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or reliance placed on the information contained within this site.

External Links & Third-Party Content
Any external links or references provided are for convenience only and do not constitute endorsement. We are not responsible for the accuracy, legality, or content of any external sites or third-party materials linked from this website.

User Responsibility
It is the responsibility of all users to verify the accuracy and relevance of any information before relying upon it. If you have a legal issue, you should seek advice from a qualified professional relevant to your situation.

By using this website, you acknowledge and agree to this disclaimer. If you do not agree, you should discontinue use of the site immediately.

© 2025 Car Crime U.K. | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme