Stopping the plant theft epidemic

"What can you do when thieves are so barefaced that they would nick a generator while you are using it?" The manager of an HSS hire shop in south London is describing how a customer had gone to check his hired generator after his power tool stopped suddenly, only to see two men running up the road carrying it between them.

Plant theft is not usually so brazen, but it is endemic in construction, and the costs add up: an estimated £600m-£1bn is lost every year, according to Home Office figures published in 1999. The figures are based on a survey carried out in 1997 (see lower box, page 25), and despite being three years old they are the most up to date available.

The cost of this criminal activity is passed on to builders in increased hire charges and insurance premiums, as well as the additional costs from loss of business while replacement equipment is found.

The Home Office report, The Nature and Extent of Construction Plant Theft, revealed surprising statistics and made wide-ranging recommendations to police, manufacturers, plant owners, plant operators and insurers for tackling the problem. So has the report had any effect on the alarming rate of plant theft? Tony Chapman, president of the Construction Plant-hire Association (CPA) and a member of the Plant Theft Action Group (PTAG), is positive about the report's effect. Asked whether the situation was improving, Chapman commented, "I would say a categorical yes." But then, the PTAG was set up as a Home Office advisory group in 1996 to tackle the problem of plant theft and commissioned the report.

Chapman said that at the manufacturing end of the chain of responsibility "the common-key factor has been eradicated" and "PIN numbers are now printed on the chassis and also on the component parts".

Lack of incentives
Despite Chapman's claims, Caterpillar – one of Britain's biggest plant manufacturers – has not yet implemented these security measures. The single-key system (whereby one key can operate any Caterpillar vehicle) is still in place, and eight-digit serial numbers are printed on the chassis, engine and gearbox but not on any other components. UK Caterpillar dealer Finning says that anti-vandal cab guards come as standard on large mobile plant, but immobilisers and Tracker systems are fitted only as optional extras. A spokesperson said: "Security is not very big issue among buyers." Barrie Hobbs, associate at Laytons Solicitors, whose clients include hire companies, said that plant theft is exacerbated by the expense of preventative security devices. Insurance premiums are rising, but the increases are not sufficient to drive change. "It is cheaper to let plant be nicked and claim on the insurance than to pay the one-off cost of security devices," Hobbs said.

The Home Office report recommended that insurers "be instrumental in driving the development of a security culture within the construction industry" by means of discounted premiums and reduced excesses for security-conscious users. But the Association of British Insurers (ABI) says: "At the moment there is no widespread initiative of incentives." The ABI confirms that after 18 months the Home Office and insurers are still "discussing how best to move forward" with the recommendations. One stumbling block, said an ABI spokesperson, is that "vast parts of the market are currently uninsured".

The ABI praises the use of equipment registers, but says: "Insurers are more likely to provide discounts for the use of immobilisers and security devices than for membership of a register as prevention is the key issue." The risk of plant theft is high: 26 out of every 1000 plant items are stolen, compared with 18 per 1000 for automobiles. The recovery rate for stolen plant is abysmal at 9.8%, again far lower than the 70% for vehicles.

The report recommended that police awareness should be improved through training, but it is difficult to see evidence of this occurring. The Metropolitan, West Midlands and West Yorkshire police forces all lack specialist units to deal with plant theft; this despite an 87 per 1000 incidence of plant theft in Greater London.

There is evidence that police forces have followed recommendations for the use of databases such as the Equipment Register (TER) in tracking down and recovering stolen plant. A West Midlands police spokesperson said: "We are aware of the TER and use it as and when stolen equipment is found with an ID number." The recovery this year of 36 stolen items in the UK with a total value of £196,300 suggests that TER can be a successful initiative.

TER recovery administrator Lester Moore was circumspect about the effectiveness of the Home Office report. He outlined the main problem TER faces: "The hope was for some kind of obligatory scheme to register all plant. While there is no legislation, the situation will not change much. Because the register is voluntary and costs money, people are unwilling to join." The CPA supports this point. "It would help to make all plant registered, and there is tentative talk of legislation, but owners think that if the government has a register it will be used to tax them," said Chapman.

PIN numbers
Most of the 24,191 items of plant stolen in 1997 were owned by hire companies like HSS. The report recommends that owners keep comprehensive equipment records, install security devices, target high-risk plant, designate responsibility for items, provide users with security advice and register equipment. At HSS all plant is given a product identification number (PIN) and is registered on a company system that traces the item's history. Advice on theft prevention is given on request, and users are responsible for the replacement cost of pilfered plant.

The shop manager says even this is not enough. "We etch PIN numbers into the metal of the machine [pictured above], but if you wanted to you could scrub it out. If you go down to the East End at the weekend you can see loads of equipment for sale, and you know that some of it is HSS, but there is no way to prove it.

"We do everything we can, but once the equipment is with the operator it is out of our hands." Almost a quarter of theft is from building sites, and the bottom line is that reducing the costs of plant theft is dependent on good security practice on the part of the site managers.

Eighteen months after the report, the prevailing opinion in industry is that little has changed. Ian Davis, director general of the Federation of Master Builders, said: "The report has had zilch impact. There ought to be figures available from the insurers or the Home Office as to what is happening so that we can act on it." But more figures are not forthcoming. A Home Office spokesperson said that the report would not be repeated: "It was intended to raise awareness within the construction industry of plant theft and what is stolen. The report was very labour- intensive and so was, literally, a one-off." What this means is that there is no statistical way of judging how the situation has changed. Everyone from manufacturers and builders to insurers are acting – if they are acting at all – in the dark. Without follow-up figures, judging the effectiveness of any initiative is difficult, but as long as it is cheaper to replace plant than secure it theft will continue.

The chain of responsibility ends at the construction site, where rigorous security measures can deter thieves; but the general attitude in the industry is one of apathy and an overriding concern to keep costs down.