Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area

The theft of construction equipment (termed ‘plant’) has been estimated to cost the UK between £600 million and £1 billion per year. The problem was thought to begetting worse, but little data existed to confirm or disprove this.

Title: The nature and extent of plant theft
Authors: Alaster Smith, Ruth Walmsley.
Series: Police Research Series Paper No. 117
Number of pages: 55 (2 for summary)
Date published: 1999

This research set out to ascertain the nature and scale of such theft in 1997. The research was conducted in two parts. First, a ‘user’ survey of companies likely to use plant was carried out to estimate the amount of plant in use and its prevalence of theft.

The second stage involved a survey of people who had reported equipment stolen in 1997,asking about the nature of the theft, the location and time of theft and the security in use.

Main findings

• Equipment theft rates and cost - The research estimated that in 1997, just over 24,000items of mobile plant were stolen, of which fewer than 10% were recovered. This plant had a theft risk of 26 per 1000, considerably higher than for road-going vehicles over the same period (18 per 1000). It was found that, generally, the smaller the plant the higher the risk of theft. The depreciated cost of the stolen equipment was estimated to amount to £66 million. While this figure is only a tenth of that commonly cited as the cost of plant theft, it does not account for replacement costs, loss of business, insurance premium increases and a range of other costs arising from the theft.

• Location of theft - The majority of the stolen plant was located in urban areas (industrial, residential and shopping) at the time of theft. Most equipment was taken from building and construction sites, or depots and company parking areas, but 15% of the equipment was reported stolen from the roadside.

• Financial cost to victims - Almost two-thirds (63%) of the victims who owned the plant stolen bought new plant, 30% hiring replacement equipment. Over 80% of those who had hired the plant stolen hired more equipment. Only 6% of the respondents reported being unable to replace the plant. Slightly over a third of the respondents reported loss of revenue as a consequence of the theft.

• Plant security - Surprisingly little equipment security was reported. Fewer than two-thirds of the respondents reported recording the serial numbers on their equipment. Very few reported using any type of alarm or immobiliser, and only 22% reported using a padlock and chain to secure equipment.

• Location security - At 20% of the building sites that equipment was stolen from, no security was reported to be used. Sites had fenced compounds in 40% of cases, but lockable gates were reported in only 23% of the thefts. Even where gates were locked, they were broken or lifted off their hinges in many cases. Depots had much better security; 23% reported having CCTV, 27% having security lighting, 23% of premises being alarmed and a further 18% having security guards who patrolled the site.

Getting a copy

• Download "The nature and extent of plant theft" summary PDF 111Kb

• Download "The nature and extent of plant theft" full report PDF 328Kb