In the realm of vehicle crime, a perplexing pattern emerges: cars, allegedly stolen by professional criminals, are found crashed, abandoned.
This scenario raises a critical question:
Why would organised thieves, seemingly equipped with sophisticated tools and intent on profit, recklessly abandon their ‘booty’?
The inconsistency suggests an alternative narrative. Could it be that some of these vehicles were never stolen but rather falsely reported as such?
Motivations for such deceit vary, from distancing oneself from an incident involving the vehicle to alleviating a financial liability or otherwise profiting from the vehicle’s disappearance.
Policing
Ask a police service how many car theft claims they have rejected, how many allegations were false, and you will likely be met with silence. Take Kent Constabulary: of 622 vehicle theft reports about which questions were asked, just 4 were ‘no-crimed’, with only two potentially being fictitious allegations – 0.3%.
Yet historically, Kent police acknowledged up to 30% of vehicle theft claims were tainted by fraud, a hundred times higher!
So what changed? The crime? Or the willingness to question it?
In turn, is disinterest more or less likely to encourage the conduct?
The Scale of the Issue
False reporting of vehicle thefts is not merely anecdotal. According to the Association of British Insurers (ABI), motor insurance fraud remains the most prevalent, with 45,800 cases detected in a single year, amounting to £501 million in fraudulent claims.
Furthermore, the City of London Police’s Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED) noted a 61% rise in opportunistic fraud, including false theft reports*, from March 2022 to April 2023.
*not specific to motor.
Implications for Law Enforcement and Insurers
Misreported thefts strain police resources, divert attention from genuine cases and potentially skew crime statistics. The confidence that can be placed in constabulary records and their professionalism is undermined.
For insurers, these false claims inflate costs, leading to higher premiums for honest policyholders and undermining trust in the system. To this, add the cost of investigation; the direct, quantifiable sum required to evidence the fraud, plus the less obvious administration required to identify the genuine victims.
Profiling Protects & Pays.
No face-to-face constabulary contact. No scrutiny. Just a voice on the phone reporting a stolen car; all it takes to launch a claim. For fraudsters, it is ideal. Wrapped in the comfort of anonymity, the familiarity & security of their home, they pose as victims. The slightest challenge could trigger a constabulary complaint. A false theft report might not be a priority for police, but a citizen complaint? Likely a KPI.
Justice is an irrelevance. They seek a crime number – the perceived golden ticket to present to their insurer. If the police accept their story, surely the insurer will too, right? Think again.
Today, a crime number is just that: a number. It does not confirm that a crime occurred. It proves only that someone picked up the phone and recited a story convincing enough to dodge a red flag. The real open questions – how? why? when? – often go unasked.
Police reports have lost their weight. Many now serve administrative ends: was it a hate crime? What’s your demographic? Did it tick the right diversity box?
Of course, not every theft report is fraudulent, and not every fraud is uncovered. But historically, 30% of cases were flagged as suspicious … how many are slipping through today?
In the first instance, apply simple scoring (profiling). Are the answers to the following questions ‘yes’:
- Located – before or shortly after the report of theft
- Incident – involved in a collision or burnt out (seemingly without being stripped)
- Electronic bypass – keyless removal alleged
If so, closer inspection is warranted – or risk further devaluation of a crime report and constabulary competency.
If, as a constabulary, insufficient time is available to undertake this task, do not hamper those who will do so.
Note – not all ‘Professional & Organised’ thieves are equal!
The Path Forward
Addressing this issue requires a multifaceted approach:
- Enhanced Verification: Implementing checks during the claims process to validate theft reports*.
- Public Awareness: Educating vehicle owners about the legal consequences of false reporting – deterrents.
- Data Analysis: Recording relevant data and leveraging analytics to identify patterns.
By acknowledging and tackling the problem of misreported vehicle thefts, we can ensure that resources are appropriately allocated, genuine victims receive the support they need, and the integrity of crime statistics is maintained.
But do the Authorities care about this low-priority crime?
For more insights on vehicle crime and insurance fraud, visit cmaclaims.co.uk and carcrime.uk.
#VehicleCrime #InsuranceFraud #LawEnforcement #PublicSafety #CMACLAIMS #CarCrimeUK
