Back to news topics | Next news topic

PLANT THEFT

by Tim Faithfull - CEA Director of Member Services

The Plant Theft Action Group

The Plant Theft Action Group (PTAG) was formed in 1996 as an advisory body to the Home Office and recommends best practice. It brings together all those with an interest in minimising plant theft, representing manufacturers, owners, hirers, users, insurers, trade associations and the Police.

Code of Practice

A voluntary Code of Practice was developed by the PTAG in 1998 giving minimum measures of protective security to be incorporated into products as part of the original specification. This was updated this year and currently includes six points.

• VIN/PIN of 17 characters conforming to the World Manufacturers Index Scheme (WMI) or ISO 10261.
• Covert marking on at least six major component parts for large tracked and wheeled machines greater than 6 tonnes and for smaller driven equipment of less than 6 tonnes.
• Unique key for the driving function.
• Perimeter security - cabs to have lockable doors and windows.
• Electronic, mechanical or hydraulic immobilisation that should resist attack for at least 12 minutes.
• Registration at initial sale and at change of ownership.

The Problem

The value of plant stolen annually is some £50 million. However, when the invisible costs are added (loss of man hours, administrative work, etc) this probably exceeds £100 million per year. Most large plant theft is organised and a significant proportion is exported, much of it believed to end up in third world countries. Stolen plant that remains in this country is difficult for the Police to identify because standardised identification numbering systems are not used. Due to the diversity of the equipment and Police unfamiliarity with it, the reporting and recording of plant theft is significantly incomplete. Less than 10% of all stolen plant is recovered and up to 40% is uninsured.

What about the rest of Europe?

Whilst plant theft has been an issue in the UK for many years it is only recently that there has been any activity evident in the rest of Europe. In 2001, the French national association, MTPS, initiated an ISO work item for a new version of ISO 10261 that would be internationally accepted as the norm for the marking and identification of construction equipment. Later that year the CECE Congress included a seminar with an update on progress with the ISO work, a word from the insurance industry and a summary of PTAG activity. One of our aims in the UK must be that the work done on the continent is complementary to our own and the CEA will be keeping a close eye on this.

Marketing Edge

Several manufacturers participate on the PTAG and others are also committed to implementing the Code of Practice. These include Caterpillar UK, JCB, Komatsu UK, Bell Equipment, Kubota and CompAir UK. The Home Office has commissioned a decal that manufacturers can use to advertise compliance once all the criteria have been met. It is expected that buyers will increasingly be looking for this as a sign that their new equipment is better protected against potential thieves.

Working Together

Of course, it is not just the manufacturers that are in the spotlight. There is a fair degree of complacency shown by owners and suppliers. Owners may think that it won’t happen to them and that, if it does, they are insured and can get a replacement machine. Suppliers may look at the additional time and cost in researching and fitting security systems, all of which adds cost and comes off the profit margin. Insurance companies pay out on claims and balance their books by increasing premiums.

The enforcement authorities don’t understand the different types of construction equipment and tend to use the terms "JCB" or "bulldozer" to describe everything! They don’t know where to look for the serial number and, because there is no standard structure or location, these are often confused with serial numbers, plant numbers and part numbers. None of which makes it easy to identify, record and report a suspected stolen machine. The dock authorities are also busier checking what comes into the country rather than what leaves.

Contractors and plant hire companies are others that may be turning a blind eye to the problem - or at least are not being proactive in helping to reduce instances of plant theft. By specifying only equipment that meets certain minimum criteria, whether it be achieved by following the Home Office Code of Practice or by other means, there would be increased pressure on manufacturers, suppliers and owners to do their bit.

We must work together to achieve an acceptable industry norm where everyone is committed and involved.

Best Practice and Ideas

The Home Office Code of Practice may not be an ideal solution. It certainly places the emphasis on the manufacturer to make the equipment more secure at the production stage, but are there better, or alternative, ways to reduce plant theft? The CEA would like to hear your views on how best to tackle the problem - please e-mail tim@admin.co.uk.