The following observations are my own opinions, not those of any insurer or other organisation.
A recent (2019) press release from The Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands says he is so angry at the apparent ease at which criminals are currently stealing cars that he has taken it upon himself to name and shame manufacturers whose vehicles are easy to steal[1].
Placing the blame at the feet of the car manufacturers may assuage his immediate anger, but it raises the question as to whether his frustration is being correctly directed.
It is true that ‘REPORTED’ car theft is on the rise and likely ‘ACTUAL’ theft also.
It is also commonly known that there is ‘kit’ available to bypass ‘keyless’ vehicle security. It has been about for 8 to 10 years, and car manufacturers must have been aware of the potential security problems which such devices might present.
The Commissioner’s article contains praise for his local manufacturer JLR:
- Consumer magazine Which? recently reported that JLR’s Discovery, Range Rover and Jaguar iPace vehicles were the only cars found to be completely secure out of 237 models tested.
And yet according to ‘confused’[2], the Range Rover Sport was the 3rd most stolen car. The statistics in that article places Land Rover/Range Rover 3rd with a 300% increase.
And so just how reliable are those figures being published? Is the source dependable and has it been verified statistically?
- Mr Jamieson said: ‘It is no longer a secret that most manufacturers have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to vehicle security.
From a historical perspective, is the issue of vehicle theft simply down to security devices installed by the vehicle manufacturers?
In the 1990’s, when UK vehicle theft was over 500,000 vehicles per annum, I do not recall anyone complaining to manufacturers that inadequate mechanical locks were the root cause for so many vehicle thefts, or that the ability to ‘hot-wire’ (create a circuit that started the engine – key bypass) was a critical design failing. The simple fact is then, as now, we have security systems that are not 100% secure, and there are criminals ‘ahead of the game’ for whom there is little deterrent and much reward from becoming involved in vehicle crime.
Manufacturers came up with a practical deterrent by about 2000; transponder keys. At or about that time the Government were content to take praise for this electronic initiative which likely contributed to the dramatic decrease in thefts … for the work of manufacturers; VCRAT[3]
But Insurers also did their bit; MIAFTR records became publicly available in the mid-90’s (I handled 1,000 claims against the data provider HPI over the following years concerning vehicles sold with defective title or other adverse history). The disclosure of insurer and DVLA information has virtually wiped out ‘ringing’, but cloning has stepped in … who is taking the DVLA to task about this? Or more importantly, who is accepting responsibility for identifying clones and enforcement actions?
Actually, I suspect ‘ringing’ still exists but in a different form – rather than repair / replace a damaged or end of life vehicle (which may be little more than 3 years old) owned and used by a criminal, they obtain a stolen one of very similar description, dispose of their damaged vehicle and apply its identity to the pilfered one.
Using an identity for an overseas or exported vehicle provides another means by which to ‘clone’.
Rather than blame the manufacturers, it appears the police have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to vehicle theft and ‘vehicle-enabled crime’; it is a relatively soft option for criminals because of a lack of enforcement and deterrent, but exacerbated by a number of additional factors:
- Ability to enter/steal a vehicle with relative ease;
- A demand for the stolen wares;
- The ability to dispose of vehicles/parts anonymously (eBay, Facebook, Gumtree etc);
- The increase in vehicle values and in turn;
- The cost of replacement parts.
Standard home security is significantly less sophisticated than vehicle systems. Yet burglary has not seen the same increase in incidence, but a decrease[4]; the ‘pickings’ are often a matter of chance, commonly small items of relatively high value that then have to be ‘fenced’ and the crime attracts attention, with higher sentences if they are caught. Though only 5% are solved![5]
In comparison, consider a Range Rover with a value of £60,000, being taken by unskilled or specific-skilled individuals in less than a minute. How is this risk vs. reward unattractive to criminals?
And so I ask myself, why is Ford apparently the most popular brand to steal? The obvious answer would be because it is a popular, affordable vehicle for the masses, there are more on the road, more involved in collisions (requiring parts) a greater number to hide within. The vehicle has an appeal which makes it attractive to a large section of the population, both criminal and law-abiding.
Years ago, the Ford Transit was a very popular van to steal; they were made in red, white and blue. It was considered (in dark humour) even an incompetent thief had a one-in-3 chance of ringing/cloning a vehicle accurately.
In the 90’s, early 00’s there was a further concern raised by the Police about security; if you make cars too secure, crooks will turn to robbery (assault) or burglary to secure the keys.
I recall that there was also a marked increase in reports of ‘fishing’ of keys from the letterbox. Really? Faced with a distraught victim who either left their keys in the car, possibly in the front door of their home or had been burgled (double-glazing may play a part in burglary – but I hear of no one taking this up with manufacturers), how to console them? An alternative explanation was proffered that it was unlikely their home had been violated, rather someone, in the dark of night, had used a fishing-rod type instrument with hook to remove keys through the letter box.
Possibly someone was ‘gaming’ with crime statistics; a vehicle theft was recorded by the police, not a burglary? A retired former West Midlands Detective Chief Inspector, Dr Patrick’s research highlighted concerns about is own former force. [6]
Once this apparent explanation was ‘out there’, as a loss adjuster involved in vehicle theft investigation, ‘fishing’ was commonly presented as a possible explanation as to why an insured’s vehicle had been taken, with their keys having been lifted out of their possession by circus-like acrobatics performed via a small, letter box opening into an unknown layout, during darkness. The reality is that since ‘key fishing’ kits are not available cheaply on the internet, or at all, the explanation was and remains a convenient speculation.
My point is this. If you create a plausible explanation, or a reason to blame criminality upon a third party (the manufacturer), it is inevitable that fraudsters[7] will adopt that protocol in order to present claims against insurers, upon a plausible basis.
I therefore anticipate a rise in fraud; why take a vehicle without consent and be tasked with the need to change an identity and produce documentation, when you can dupe a vendor to hand over the car , keys and V5c?
I am not saying that it was wrong for the Police and Crime Commissioner to name and shame manufacturers, it may work temporarily, but think it through … and behind the scenes speak with relevant stakeholders about the benefits of collaboration (see below).. if you think that your proposal will provide a real solution, or not.
09/2018 an article was headed:
Nine out of ten car thieves are not caught as the number of vehicles stolen increases[8]
- Some of the country’s largest police forces are failing to identify suspects in more than 90 per cent of car thefts, as critics claim criminals no longer fear being caught.
- After years of decline, the number of vehicles now being stolen has risen to its highest level in almost a decade.
- Organised criminal gangs often steal high value cars in order to ship them overseas.
- Keyless technology has also been blamed for a rise in offences, with thieves using special devices to bypass vehicle security.
- But the rise in offences has not been matched by a rise in the number of criminals being brought to justice
My conclusion is that it is as much a failure of policing and fraud prevention tactics, than manufacturers ‘dropping the ball’.
Manufacturers might seek to turn the tables on the Police by requesting and publishing statistical information about ‘clear-ups’, but will this help reduce the overall theft numbers?
My view is that it is ONLY through joined-up thinking and co-operation between all relevant stakeholders (Police, manufacturers, finance companies, insurers and their loss investigators/adjusters) that we will keep ahead of the game when it comes to vehicle theft and outwitting the criminals who seek to make a living from it. I expand on this theme below, pointing out where various preventative initiatives have been undertaken and then failed for one reason or another.
Further information about the VCT submission can be found here.
[1] News update here: https://www.westmidlands–pcc.gov.uk/news/news–2019/cars–most–likely–tobe–stolen–named–by–pcc/
[2] https://www.confused.com/on–the–road/safety/uk–most–stolen–cars–revealed
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/727583.stm
[4] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinengla ndandwales/yearendingseptember2018#main–points
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/uk–news/2018/jun/17/figures–less–than–5–of–burglaries–androbberies–in–uk–solved
[6] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law–and–order/6736505/Police–force–tricks–to–fiddlecrime–figures.html
[7] A victim of crime turning to the crime to address their loss
[8] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/06/nine–ten–car–thieves–not–caught–number–vehiclesstolen–increases/