Upload
raffiai-samin
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
1/52
Plant and Equipment Theft:
A Practical GuideSecond Edition
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
2/52
Plant and Equipment Theft:
A Practical Guide
2007 OPERC
With the exception of research, private study or review, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by
any means, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.
Applications for reproduction should be made to the publisher.
First edition 2006
Second edition 2007
Author:Dr David J. Edwards
Editors:Miss Philippa Spittle and Dr Gary Holt
Published by:The Off-highway Plant and Equipment
Research Centre (OPERC)
PO Box 5039
DudleyDY1 9FQ
Email: [email protected]
Tel: +44 (0) 1384 356202
Distributed by:IRAS Group
PO Box 3258
Wolverhampton
WV3 7YT
Email: [email protected]
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
3/52
Conditions of Use
The material contained within this document constitutes general guidelines
only and is not, at the time of publication, mandatory. The guidanceprovided does not reduce, or replace, any legal obligations upon employers
(or employees), for example, to comply with any statutory duties under
relevant legislation.
The guidance is given in good faith; but the reader must accept that
because (among other things) of the infinite particular and specific hazards
(risks) relating to any given item of plant operating in any given working
environment, the guide cannot and therefore does not, purport to offer
optimal advice for all possible circumstances. Readers must use the guide
as a basis for learning about the subject only; and consult as appropriate,specific agencies, technical consultants, or specialist manufacturers etc.
before acting upon any recommendations contained within it. Every effort
has been made to ensure that the contents of this guide are correct, error
free, and representing best practice, but no guarantee is made express or
implied, that this is the case. Accordingly, this publication is offered without
legal liability or responsibility on the part of the author, editors, publisher,
distributor, or anyone else involved in its production.
OPERC does not endorse or specifically recommend any of the products
or services referred to in this guide. Any reference to a commercial
organisation, product or service is for information and / or educationalpurposes only.
Whilst written principally in a UK context, for the most part, the principles
and concepts discussed within this publication hold equal international
relevance.
OPERC acknowledges with appreciation all who have helped in the
development and publication of this guide. In particular, special thanks
go to those companies that offered direct support through sponsorship:
Automatrics, Hewden, Mtrack and Thiefbeaters. Individuals who also
contributed via editorial and / or other input include Mr Richard Taylor
(Automatrics) and Jeff Schofield (Hewden). Finally, a thank you is extended
to Mr Richard Carmichael for his original contribution on the first edition.
Acknowledgements
i
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
4/52
The Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre (OPERC) has
gained an enviable reputation as the leading international centre of
excellence for plant and equipment science. OPERC represents all those
associated with off-highway plant and equipment - whether industry
practitioners, professionals or scholars. This combination of experience,
information and ongoing scientific research, ensures that the products and
services provided by OPERC are of the highest quality and of value to all
stakeholders.
OPERC is a non-partisan and non-profit making organisation. Its main
objective is to advance off-highway plant and equipment knowledge and
share this among all interested parties. Funds generated by the associationare used to help research, author, publish and make available information
(such as this guide), that would otherwise be too time consuming and / or
expensive for any single member to produce in isolation.
There are many benefits to be gained from becoming an OPERC member
including access to free information and publications; access to teaching,
learning and assessment materials; excellent networking opportunities; and
attendance at OPERC events. More comprehensive description of OPERC
benefits, along with details of how you can join the organisation, can be
found on the official OPERC website at: www.operc.com.
Alternatively, if you have any queries regarding OPERC, then please do
contact our administration team who will be happy to assist you:
Telephone: +44(0) 1384 356202
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.operc.com
Welcome to OPERC
ii
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
5/52
Since this guide was first published in 2006, the subject of plant and
equipment theft has gained increased recognition throughout many sectorsof industry. This is to be applauded, for the more prominence afforded
the issue then the more likely are hirers, owners and operators of such
equipment, to take practical steps to make their assets more secure.
However, commentators presently quantify the cost of plant theft within
the UK at approximately 100 million per annum. When this is considered
alongside average recovery rates of between five and ten per cent for
stolen plant items, the need to continue fighting back against the criminal is
self evident.
Fortunately, the technologies that underpin plant theft security and stolen
asset recovery systems continue to evolve. If properly employed, these
technologies can make it harder for criminals to carry out a theft, while
also increasing the probability of stolen assets being reunited with their
legitimate owners. Nevertheless, owners and operators must still maintain
an awareness of the issues regarding plant theft and take practical
measures to address them if they want to avoid becoming victims.
This revised second edition of OPERCs guide on plant and equipment
theft has been updated to include the provision of additional practical
guidance, as well as the inclusion of more recent statistics and reporting onadvancements in security systems. Its overriding aim remains: to contribute
something to helping reduce this unfortunate criminal activity.
Preface
Mr Graham Eaves
OPERC President, 2007-2008
iii
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
6/52
Contents
Introduction 1
The Plant Theft Process 3
Understanding the Theft Process 3
Why Steal Plant and Equipment? 4
Who Steals Plant and Equipment 5
Opportunist Thieves 5
Professional Thieves 5
How Plant and Equipment is Removed 6
Plant Theft via Fraudulent Hire 6
The Stolen Plant Market 7
Summary 8
The Nature and Extent of the Problem 9
The Costs of Plant Theft 9
Some Plant Theft Statistics 11
Summary 13How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft 15
Using the Plant Theft Process to Apply Security 15
Categorising Security Systems 16
Deterrent Systems 16
Preventative Systems 17
Recovery Systems 17
Specific Anti-theft and Theft-recovery Systems 18
Personalisation 18
Marking 19
Registration Schemes 23
Alarms 25
Immobilisers 25
Recovery Devices 27
Site Security 30
Installation and Testing of Security Systems 31
iv
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
7/52
What to do if a Theft Occurs 31
What of the Future? 33
Summary 33
Concluding Summary 35
References 37
Further Information 38
List of FiguresFigure 1 The Plant Theft Process 3
Figure 2 The Costs of Plant Theft 9
Figure 3 An Example of Preventing Access to the Cab 15
Figure 4 Typical Manufacturers VIN Plate 19
Figure 5 Adding Identification to an Excavator Using DeepImprint Stamping 20
Figure 6 Overtly Etched Glass Highlighted within a Warning Sign 20
Figure 7 Example of a Concealed-marking Warning Label:Clearly Visible on an Excavator Arm 21
Figure 8 Example of a Concealed-marking Warning Label:With Security Etching in a Concealed Position 21
Figure 9 Example of the Type of Information Held on a Microdot 23
Figure 10 Specimen Marking Database Registration Document 24
Figure 11 Typical Theft Detection Recovery Report 29
List of Tables
Table 1 Stolen Plant Recovery Statistics: as Reported by TER
in Support of the Police for the Period 2004 to2006 Inclusive 4
Table 2 Covert Marking Methods 22
Table 3 Some Types of Mechanical Immobilisers and TheirTypical Application 27
Table 4 Examples of How to Improve Site Security 30
Table 5 Examples of Shared Responsibilities to Help Combat
Plant Theft 36
v
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
8/52
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
9/52
The issue of plant and equipment1 theft represents an ongoing challenge
for industry. Even by the lowest estimates, the aggregated value of planttheft within the UK represents a multimillion pound (obviously illegitimate!)
business. In practice (and for a variety of reasons), levels of plant
security generally tend to be less than optimal providing little immediate
prospect of the problem diminishing. Neither is the situation helped by an
apparent degree of apathy towards plant security on the part of owners and
operators. One survey for example, found that two-thirds of plant owners
did not even make a record of the serial number of their plant or equipment,
whilst less than one in four of those who had fallen victim to plant theft had
bothered to chain up and lock their plant items (Smith and Walmsley,1999).
In view of this situation, it is something of an irony that there is an
increasing awareness of the plant theft problem, as is witnessed by the
greater media coverage that it now attracts. This awareness has partly
been encouraged by recent changes to plant insurance arrangements. For
example, before issuing policies, many insurers now enquire about the
specification of installed security devices (such as alarms, immobilisers
and trackers) as well as the proposed usage and storage arrangements for
the plant. Depending upon the answers to these kinds of queries, insurers
may subsequently require increased security arrangements for the assets
that they are being asked to insure, or in the extreme, refuse to offer cover.
Conversely, insurers may give discounted premiums and excesses on plantand equipment that is more securely protected and stored.
There is a growing realisation among plant owners of the enormous costs
to business of plant theft. The financial costs are not simply limited to
the value of the stolen item itself, but can also represent numerous other
indirect costs which, because of their nature, are not always covered by
insurance. Furthermore, for the victim of plant theft the experience can
be traumatic and prove extremely inconvenient with respect to business
operations.
In view of this, it is essential that plant hirers, owners and operators are to
some extent informed on the subject of plant theft, so that they may take
whatever action is reasonably practicable to minimise their chances of
becoming a victim. They need to understand the basics of the plant theft
process, including how and why their plant may be vulnerable to theft, and
what measures they can take to prevent or deter such theft. They also need
to know what to do in the event of theft, including both reporting the theft
and recovering the plant.
Introduction
1
Introduction
1The term plant and equipment embraces an almost limitless group of mechanical tools, including for
example, excavators, face shovels, tracked and wheeled loaders, dumpers, rollers, generators, drillingequipment, access equipment, mechanical hand tools and so on. For ease of reading throughout thisguide therefore, the shortened term plant will often be used but should be perceived by the reader,where appropriate, as potentially referring to all these types of plant and equipment. For similar reasons,the singular term thief should also, as appropriate, be perceived as referring to all parties to a theft, forexample, where the act of theft might involve an organised gang comprising several members.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
10/52
There are currently many types of plant security system available, offering
varying levels of theft prevention, as well as an equally broad array of theft
recovery systems, all of which can take a long time to research and assess.
To help offset this situation, this guide provides a useful resource for the
busy practitioner, presenting an overview of the issues associated withplant theft and also some of the technologies relating to theft prevention
and recovery. Remember however that the guide is only an overview and
readers must consult specific agencies, anti-theft consultants or specialist
manufacturers, as appropriate, before acting upon any recommendations
contained within it.
The following chapters make up this guide:
The Plant Theft Process
This chapter reviews the plant theft process, looking briefly at the motive for
theft, the methods that might be used to take plant away from its legitimateowner and some of the markets for stolen plant resale. It is concluded
that plant theft may be perceived as a low risk, high gain crime by some
criminals, where recovery of stolen goods is lower than, for example, stolen
private road vehicles and where the stolen plant might reappear anywhere
in the world.
The Nature and Extent of the Problem
This chapter uses some basic statistics to underline the nature and extent
of plant theft. The annual cost of plant theft in the UK is shown to vary
depending on how it is calculated, but is always a multi-million pound
figure. Excavators are identified as a favourite target item and urban
located building sites as a particularly high risk plant theft environment. It is
concluded that plant theft is a significant problem whether represented in
terms of the numbers of thefts or by the financial value of the items stolen.
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant Theft
This chapter provides a categorisation of the various plant security systems,
followed by a more specific description of the anti-theft and theft-recovery
solutions. It is concluded that a diverse range of solutions is available and
that specialist advice and close consultation with manufacturers may be
called for, in seeking to choose an optimum system for a given plant itemand / or a given working or plant storage environment.
The guide also provides bibliographic details of reference sources used in
its compilation, along with a comprehensive alphabetical listing of where
additional information may be found.
It is reiterated at this point that OPERC does not endorse or specifically
recommend any of the products or services referred to in this guide and
that any reference to a commercial organisation, product or service is for
information or educational purposes only.
Introduction
2
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
11/52
Understanding the Theft Process
Plant theft is a series of processes which begin with identification by
the thief of the plant item to be stolen and conclude with its resale (or
redeployment). The relationship between these processes is shown
sequentially in Figure 1.
The Plant Theft Process
Figure 1 The Plant Theft Process
The Plant Theft Process
Thief identifies appropriate item,or sees opportune item to steal
Resale method is mainly dependent upon
plant type - from simple auction orblack market to existing well establishedinternational criminal networks
To the point of resale (or redeployment*).Method depends upon size of asset and
whether item is destined for UK or overseas
Preparation for resale(or redeployment*) is carried out
(e.g. removal of identifying marks or features)
Plant is transported away for processing.
Easier for smaller items, but may requiretrailer, low-loader etc. for larger plant
For self-propelled plant, activation is made(e.g. of the engine and hydraulics)
Access to (e.g. the place of storage),or into (e.g. for self-propelled plant)
the item is made
RESALE(or redeployment*)
TRANSPORTATION/
SHIPPING
PROCESSING
REMOVAL
ACTIVATION
ACCESS
IDENTIFICATION
3
*Redeployment means that the item was stolen to be redeployed elsewhere and not
necessarily stolen to be sold on.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
12/52
The Plant Theft Process
Table 1 Stolen Plant Recovery Statistics: as Reported by TERin Support of the Police for the Period 2004 to
2006 Inclusive
Plant Type Percentage (%) of all Recoveries
2004 2005 2006
Telehandlers 33 10 17
Excavators 31 50 40
Trailers 18 24 26
Dumpers 8 2 2
Tractors 4 3 n/a
Rollers 3 4 4
Undefined other items 3 7 11
Why Steal Plant and Equipment?
It is implicit that the motive for theft of any kind is dishonest financial gain
and this applies equally to the taking of plant and equipment. It has been
suggested that thieves see plant theft as a low risk (i.e. lesser chanceof being caught), high gain (i.e. in terms of financial returns) crime. This
perception is somewhat borne out by the statistic for recovery of stolen
plant which is estimated to be between five to ten per cent of items
(depending on what source of data is used); compared for example, to 70
per cent for stolen private vehicles (Construction Manager, 2005).
Based on recovery statistics of stolen plant made during the period 2004
to 2006 as reported by The National Plant and Equipment Register (TER),
Table 1 illustrates that the probability of recovery will vary significantly
dependent upon plant type. The table also shows that recovery rates for
types of plant item may vary from year to year.
4
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
13/52
Who Steals Plant and Equipment?
Those responsible for carrying out plant theft may be broadly categorised
as being either opportunist thieves or professional thieves.
Opportunist ThievesOpportunist thieves will mainly steal on impulse taking, for example, plant
that has been left unattended or that has few or no security measures
attached to it and therefore represents a soft target. Very often they will
take equipment laying around on construction sites or that which has been
left momentarily unattended by the highway (for example, by utility service
workers). Workers who leave plant in such a way are failing to implement
even fundamental security measures and the opportunist thief will always
be on the lookout to capitalise on this.
Opportunist thieves will target those assets which are easiest to steal
and which equally, are easiest and quickest to sell on. They are mainly
responsible for the theft of smaller equipment (such as hand-held tools,
breakers, small electrical generators etc.), trailer mounted items (such as
traffic signal systems and pneumatic generators) and the more commonly
used plant items (which by definition therefore are also the types of item
that offer the greatest prospect of a quick resale).
These types of thieves will steal anything that presents them with the
opportunity, which although beyond the remit of this guide, might also
include construction materials or other non-plant items.
Professional ThievesProfessional thieves represent the most significant threat to the theft of
higher value plant and equipment. They are normally organised criminals
(individuals, gangs and networks) often with well established links to
national and foreign crime syndicates.
Many professional criminals have spent their lifetime in the trade,
developing their expertise and expanding their contacts with fellow
criminals (BSIA, 2005). They tend to target the larger, more expensive
items often for export and resale and often in accordance with specific
purchaser requirements. This is why professional thieves are largely
responsible for the international stolen to order theft of plant, which, due
to the complexities of its removal, transport and processing, is very often
backed up by a considerable criminal organisation.
The money generated by professional criminal activity is thought to help
support a vast array of additional illegal activities ranging from other types
of organised crime to the funding of illegal organisations. It has even been
suggested that professional theft may also be funding terrorism(Gerrard, 2006).
The Plant Theft Process
5
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
14/52
6
How Plant and Equipment is Removed
The ingenuity of the thief has brought about many methods for the removal
of plant, whether it be from a storage container, a storage compound or the
actual site upon which a larger item is working, for example, from where itis parked. As a result of this, it would be folly for any owner to consider that
their plant is either too small or irrelevant, or conversely, too cumbersome
or large to be stolen. However, it is the case that the smaller the plant,
the greater the risk, mainly because of its ease of movement (Smith and
Walmsley, 1999).
Equipment such as unattended power tools and road breakers can most
easily be taken, as a thief can simply place them in the back of a car or van
and drive off within seconds. Similarly, items of towed equipment, such as
trailer-mounted generators and compressors are relatively easily hitched
to any vehicle with a towing facility and in such circumstances, can be very
quickly removed from site. Small earthmoving plant such as micro diggers,
mini diggers and self propelled barrows, are generally taken by picking
up the plant item in its entirety, often using a lorry mounted knuckle boom
crane (e.g. HIAB). They can then be placed upon a trailer, or the bed of a
lorry, for easy removal.
If a plant item can be accessed and started, it may be loaded under its
own power onto an awaiting trailer or if it is a road-going vehicle, it may
simply be driven along the highway to a place where it will be processed
prior to resale. Larger plant items can also be transported by a variety of
other means including within cargo and shipping containers, within open or
closed cargo deck lorries and on other specialist transport such as low-
loaders.
The fact that thieves identify the opportunity and have the confidence to
take such large plant items bears testament to the poor levels of security
that are often associated with them. It also reinforces the apparent ease
with which theft can sometimes be carried out. Fortunately, there is much
an owner or operator can do to change this situation and we look at this in
more detail later in this guide.
Plant Theft via Fraudulent HireWith plant security systems and other forms of deterrent becoming more
prominent and effective, one of the latest ways that plant and equipment is
stolen is through fraudulent hire. This is normally performed by professional
gangs and the scam is targeted at plant hire companies.
First, the gang sets up and registers a bogus company. They then proceed
to build up a credit history and payment record for that company based on
small purchases and legitimately paid invoices. At this point, they will hire
a substantial quantity of plant from a hire company (or companies) only to
then disappear without trace.
The Plant Theft Process
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
15/52
7
For this type of criminal activity, deterrents are not effective. What is
required is thorough checks on new companies that apply to hire largeplant items (for example, to consider credit history, size of previous credit
purchases, settlement history, company age etc.). References should alsobe sourced by the hire company prior to releasing any equipment to such
previously unknown customers.
Note also, that if the hire company installs protection to its fleet by wayof tracking equipment, this should not be disclosed to any other parties
and in particular, to anyone hiring the plant!
The Stolen Plant Market
Because of the high capital cost of new plant and its much lower (i.e.depreciated) residual value as it ages, there is quite understandably a
legitimate national and international market in used plant and equipment. It
is not uncommon therefore, for plant to spend the latter part of its working
life in other (often developing) countries, helping to improve infrastructure or
assisting in agricultural operations. Unfortunately, parallel to this legitimate
trade, is its illegal counterpart in stolen plant and equipment.
Put simply, stolen UK plant is destined for one of either two markets. The
first is the home market, where (typically the smaller) items circulate within
the used-equipment sector, usually after having had their original identity
erased or altered in some way. The second is the export market and a verysignificant amount of stolen UK plant ends up overseas (Gardner et al,
2002).
Stolen plant is exported to numerous locations around the world, including
via the following trafficking routes:
q from England, to Ireland, to Africa, to the Middle East and Cyprus;
q from England, to Ireland via France;
q from the UK via sea direct to Eastern Europe;
q from the UK through Western Europe, on to Eastern Europe;
q from the UK to Western Europe via Ireland; and
q from the UK to Western Europe, to the Balkans, Greece, The Middle
East, and Africa (TER, 2004).
Clearly, in view of the global market for stolen plant and equipment the
demand for these illicit products is always going to exist. This in turn
indicates that there will always be a financial motive to encourage this
type of theft; so the problem is not simply going to go away. It is therefore
a significant responsibility of plant owners (and others) to take whateveraction they can to minimise their possibility of becoming another victim.
The Plant Theft Process
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
16/52
8
The Plant Theft Process
Summary
Plant theft can be considered as a series of several processes:
identification, access, activation, removal, processing, transportation and
resale (or redeployment).
The fundamental motive for plant theft is easy financial reward.
Furthermore, and partly because of the relatively low recovery rates
associated with stolen plant, this type of crime is sometimes perceived by
thieves as a low risk, high gain activity.
Thieves are very ingenious and will steal anything from the smallest hand
tool to the largest of mechanical earthmoving plant, so anyone who owns
such items is at risk of becoming a victim of plant theft.
In general, thieves are either opportunist (being typically amateurs who
act mainly on impulse, given an easy opportunity to steal) or professional
(being typically much more organised and also possibly operating in
established networks at home and abroad).
There are many ways in which plant may be removed for processing andresale, including in the back of a van (for smaller plant items), by being
towed away, loaded onto a trailer or if road-going, by being driven alongthe highway.
Stolen plant is destined for sale either on the used equipment market at
home or, as is generally the case with larger more expensive items, on theinternational network of stolen goods that may end up just about anywhere
in the world. Such a vast market looks set to ensure that the demand forstolen plant will long continue.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
17/52
9
The Nature and Extent of the Problem
The Costs of Plant Theft
As demonstrated in Figure 2, the total cost of having a plant item stolen
includes both the direct costs of the theft, i.e. the value of the stolen item,
and also some of the other indirect costs associated with its loss.
The Nature and Extent of the Problem
Figure 2 The Costs of Plant Theft
Even by the lowest estimates, the total value of plant theft within the UK
is many millions of pounds. However, this value can vary significantly
depending on exactly how it is calculated and/or the source and nature of
those data used in the calculations, such as whether new replacement cost
or residual plant value is used.
...TO WHICH MIGHT BE ADDED ANY COMBINATION OF...
These are often more obscure and relate particularly to the owner or operators
business. For example:
Emergency costs (e.g. repair damage to plant storage area)
Short term hire of replacement plant
Loss of productivity and output
Increased labour to recover negative impact on work programme
Other negative impact on business (e.g. client goodwill)
Administration of the process (e.g. dealing with police, reporting or recovery)
Insurance policy excess and increased insurance premiums
Social costs such as trauma, de-motivation and stress
This is the value of the stolen plant item which may be expressed in several
ways. For example:
Its replacement (i.e. new-for-old) value
Its residual (i.e. depreciated) value
THE LESS OBVIOUS OR INDIRECT COSTS
THE OBVIOUS OR DIRECT COST
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
18/52
The Nature and Extent of the Problem
The value of plant theft as reported to the UK National Plant and
Equipment Register(TER) for the period 200304 was 36.8 million, an
increase of 1.8 million on the previous year (TER, 2004). The equivalent
value based upon 2005 statistics showed a further rise, of approximately
13 per cent, reaching 43 million (TER, 2006A). Some encouragement wasprovided by the 2006 data, as TER reported a decrease in thefts for the first
time since their records began in 1995; this decrease was 18 per cent (as
compared to the preceding year), with the total value of items stolen being
31.5 million (TER, 2007).
A total value as anecdotally [sic] stated by the (then) Policing and
Reducing Crime Unit of the Home Office, was put at as much as 1 billion
per annum in 1997 (Smith and Walmsley,1999). Note that not all plant and
equipment is registered with the TER database so their particular estimates
do not necessarily represent the entire value of plant theft within Great
Britain for any given period, whereas one would reasonably infer that thefigure provided by the Home Office does attempt to quantify the gross value
of such losses (i.e. including indirect costs).
As alternative comparisons, the (then) Police Scientific Development
Branch (now known as the Home Office Scientific Development
Branch) estimated the annual cost of stolen plant to be in excess of 100
million (Gardner et al, 2002). Meanwhile, one particular insurers records
showed that stolen UK construction plant represents a depreciated cost
in excess of 70 million per annum; while also pointing out that the UK
construction sector alone is losing the equivalent of 400 million a yearas a result of indirect theft costs such as loss of business and late delivery
penalties (Allianz and Cornhill, 2005). The earlier cited TER (2007)
document reported that the Home Office estimate the value of plant theft
within the UK to presently stand at 1 million per week (one assumes this is
a direct cost); while recent statistics presented to the Plant Theft Action
Group2 quantified Plant theft costs to be valued at 100 million per year
(Clancy, 2007).
2The Plant Theft Action Group (PTAG) was established by the Home Office but they no longer have
any direct involvement and PTAG has in effect become an industry-led group. Contact details are givenunder Further Information at the end of this guide.
10
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
19/52
11
The Nature and Extent of the Problem
Some Plant Theft Statistics
Based upon previous research, the overall risk of plant theft within the
UK has been quantified in terms of 26 thefts per 1,000 plant units, which
compares to 18 thefts per 1,000 units for motor vehicles, on an analysis of1997 figures (Smith and Walmsley,1999). In view of the longer term upward
trend in plant theft, one might reasonably assume the risk (i.e. probability
of theft or attempted theft) to have increased since that research was
undertaken.
Indeed, over the period 2000 to 2004 inclusive, the total value of thefts
reported to The National Plant and Equipment Register (TER) increased
by approximately 75 per cent (from 21 million in 2000, to 36.8 million in
2004), while the average value of each item of stolen plant increased from
7,500 in 2000 to approximately 10,200 in 2004. By 2005, comparative
statistics showed a further 13 per cent increase in the value of thefts as
compared to 2004 (with a 20 per cent increase in the number of thefts)
to give a figure of 43 million total value (TER, 2006). According to latest
statistics from the same source, total thefts reported during 2006 were
valued at 31.5 million with an average value of 8,900 per stolen asset;
while excavators represented just over one third of these thefts by value, at
almost 12 million (TER, 2007).
Based on the latest annual report (ibid.), the most commonly stolen typesof plant and equipment during 2006, as defined by percentage of total
number of reported thefts, were (in descending order) as follows:
qother(which includes forestry equipment, compaction equipment,loading shovels, skid steers, platforms, pumps, quarrying equipment,
surveying equipment) 31.2% [2005 = 26%, 2004 = 28%];
q trailers 25.5% [2005 = 25%, 2004 = 25%];
qexcavators 22.3% [2005 = 27%, 2004 = 29%];
qquad bikes 7.4% [2005 = 6%, 2004 = n/a];
qdumpers 6.6% [2005 = 7%, 2004 = 6%];
qrollers 5.6% [2005 = 5%, 2004 = 4%]; and
qbreakers 4.4% [2005 = 4%, 2004 = 4%].
[Percentages shown in square brackets are corresponding 2005 and 2004
figures for comparison purposes].
Noteworthy from these statistics, is that excavators (here the definition
of which includes all classes such as hydraulic, midi, mini and backhoe
loaders) accounted for almost half of the total theft value in 2004 and 2005and almost 38 per cent of theft value in 2006.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
20/52
Smith and Walmsley (1999) reported on research that was undertaken to
assess the risk, cost and nature of plant theft within the construction sector.
(Their definition of plant was limited to self propelled machinery or that
which required towing and so did not include therefore, items such as hand
tools, breakers or road drills).
They found that most construction plant was taken from urban areas and
that 15 per cent of all thefts were from the roadside (refer to the discussion
about opportunist thieves in the preceding chapter). After becoming a victim
of theft, approximately two-thirds of plant owners then went on to buy new,
replacement plant items of which two-thirds of these purchases were
supported by insurance claims and of which approximately half of these
claimants subsequently witnessed a rise in their insurance premiums. While
considering this latter aspect in terms of cost to theft victims, insurance
policy excesses might also be considered, which for large plant items can
represent quite substantial sums.
Their research generally found that security relating to plant and equipment
within the construction industry was very poor, with building sites in
particular being cited as the places of plant operation with least security
measures (see advice on site security in the next chapter for indication
of how this might be addressed in practice). Conversely, it was found
that depots of various types were found to have better levels of security,
including measures such as closed-circuit television monitoring.
Regardless of their source, plant theft statistics certainly confirm the extentof the problem to industry and the enormity of this in financial terms to
business was outlined earlier. However, the reader is reminded that any
calculated value of theft depends upon numerous factors, but principally:
q the nature of the plant cost or value data used, for example, whether
the value of a stolen item is expressed as new-for-old replacement
value (purchase cost) or whether its depreciated residual value
is stated; and
q the defined calculation parameters, for example, whether the directcosts alone are considered or whether (and to what extent)
other indirect business costs are included in any calculation of losses.
The Nature and Extent of the Problem
12
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
21/52
Summary
The overall risk of plant theft has previously been quantified as 26 thefts
per 1,000 plant units. The general (longer term) trend has remained upward
and this is borne out partly by the 20 per cent increase in theft numbers
(13 per cent by value) as reported to TER during 2005 (albeit most recent
comparative figures do show a slight decline). The average value of stolen
plant per item also demonstrates a longer term upward trend.
Excavators of various types remain a favourite target for thieves, the extent
of their removal tending to represent between approximately one-third and
almost one-half of the total value of reported thefts over recent years.
Earlier research relating to plant theft within the construction sector
identified urban areas as presenting a higher risk and in particular buildingsites. Plant and equipment security generally within this sector has been
noted to be lacking.
Combined, these high levels of theft represent significant financial losses,
the quantum of which can vary significantly depending upon the method of
calculation employed.
The Nature and Extent of the Problem
13
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
22/52
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
23/52
15
Using the Plant Theft Process to Apply Security
As discussed previously (refer to Figure 1), plant theft can be considered
as a series of separate processes. For each of these processes, there are
some obvious actions which can be taken to help make the act of theft
more difficult, and as a result, minimise the risk of theft occurring3. Some
examples of these actions are as follows.
If the identification by a thief of a suitable plant item can be avoided,
then the temptation, particularly for opportunist theft, is removed altogether.
Arguably, the simplest example of this is to lock smaller items of plant
securely away and out of view. Along similar lines, it should be an objective
to deny access to plant, for example to the site where it is stored in the
case of smaller equipment, or to the cab or the controls in the case of
larger self-propelled plant. In the latter respect, Figure 3 shows a tracked
excavator that has been parked with all cab access points covered and
locked up. Not only does this make access more difficult, but it also affords
some protection to window glass.
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and
Equipment Theft
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
Figure 3 An Example of Preventing Access to the Cab
3Note here, that it is important to balance between continually developing technological responses to
plant theft (some of which are discussed later); and more simple good practice in the managementof plant to, from and whilst employed on site. That is, even in those situations where it would not befeasible or practical to implement emerging technologies, good management can often reduce thethreat of plant theft with minimal time and cost.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
24/52
16
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
The removal of stolen plant through its activation (if carried out) and
transportation, might be hampered by physically locking the item in
place or by the use of other physical barriers to its movement. Methods
of immobilisation may also be considered for this purpose and tracking
systems, whilst not impeding the act of physical movement, have obviousbenefits here too particularly real time tracking methods that can identify
transportation routes.
Preparation of the stolen plant for resale or redeployment during the
processing stage, can be made more difficult for the thief by the use of
distinct identifying marks and other traceable features. These features
may be overt or covert and anything that adds time and inconvenience to
the processing stage might deter the thief from taking the asset in the first
place (which is why warning labels are used with covert or hidden systems).
Intervention during transportation of a stolen asset to the point of resale or
redeployment might be possible, but this is principally the responsibility of
police and other authorities.
The method ofresale will depend on whether the plant is to be sold in the
home or export market. Professional thieves may have a well established
international network into which they feed their stolen goods and again,
any intervention here is principally the remit of national and international
authorities. Within the UK, smaller plant items in particular may surface for
resale in auctions, private sales, newspapers or the trade press.
Categorising Security Systems
Although there are many different types of security system, they can
generally be classified as either deterrent systems, preventative systems or
recovery systems.
Deterrent SystemsThese types of system aim to make plant less appealing to a thief, usually
by reducing its anonymity. This might be achieved by making a plant item
more instantly recognisable with overt or covert features. Alternatively, it
may be possible to increase the awareness of an ongoing theft, because
of distinct, recognisable livery or by locking the plant item into a strange
configuration that would make it look odd if it were being moved or
transported. Deterrent systems do not always directly affect the operation
or ease of removal of a plant item, but tend to increase its individuality.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
25/52
Deterrent systems often work by making an asset and its component parts
traceable to their legitimate owner for longer than would be the case, were
such systems not employed. A thief would much rather steal an unmarked,
unregistered plant item, of which there are thousands similar, in preference
to an item covered in many forms of covert and overt markings, which istherefore more easily identifiable.
Deterrent systems include distinct corporate livery, tagging methods,
audible alarms, plant registration schemes and covert marking.
Preventative SystemsThese systems aim to insert a barrier of some kind between the thief and
their need to activate, or physically remove, a plant item. This may be
achieved in a variety of ways such as by:
q preventing the operation of one or more critical parts of the plant (e.g.
the power source or a sub-system such as a hydraulic pump);
q providing a physical barrier between the thief and the item (i.e. to make
the plant inaccessible); or
q employing some other physical method to prevent its removal (e.g. by
locking the item in place).
Preventative systems include locks, chains, lockable storage containers or
compounds, barriers, key activated systems and immobilisers.
Recovery SystemsRecovery systems are not anti-theft devices in themselves, but rather,
their purpose is to increase the likelihood of recovery of stolen plant items.
Typically, they are covertly installed, tracking and location finding devices.
Distinct markings and registration schemes can be used in conjunction with
location finders in order to definitively confirm that a recovered plant item
has been stolen and / or to identify its owner. Such an approach combines
the deterrent system with the recovery system.
The most effective plant security systems will generally comprise a
combination of all three of the above classifications. That is, they deter,
prevent and, if necessary, aid recovery.
17
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
26/52
18
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
Specific Anti-theft and Theft-recovery Systems
The following discussion provides further detail on specific forms of plant
security system and the method(s) by which these systems are designed
to work in practice. The systems discussed are personalisation, marking,registration schemes, alarms, immobilisers and recovery devices.
Wherever possible, trade or brand names have not been used in the
discussion but contact details of numerous manufacturers (of these types
of anti-theft system) may be found at the end of this guide under Further
Information. Note that, where appropriate, processional security advice
should always be sought, for example when making purchasing decisions.
Two good starting points in this respect are Thatcham (see: http://www.
thatcham.org/) and Sold Secure (see: http://www.soldsecure.com/) who
perform testing and provide ratings for security products.
PersonalisationPersonalisation refers to any modification made to a plant item whichdistinguishes it in some way from its mass-produced, standardised
equivalent. Personalisation is a mechanism by which to make a givenitem much more readily identifiable, or traceable, to its legitimate owner.
Any such distinguishing features would of course need to be removed bythieves prior to resale and this requirement makes the processing aspect
of plant theft more difficult. With so many standard machines in use (andhence available to be stolen), personalisation might significantly help to
reduce the risk of theft.
Perhaps the easiest method of marking plant is to personalise its livery.
This could for example include the addition of several highly visibleinstances of the company name, company logo and telephone contact
number. Not only are these a deterrent to thieves but they also give theadded bonus of providing a form of company advertising.
Personalised plant paint schemes are the most visible of identificationmethods. Their use also adds significant difficulty to stolen plant
processing as they will normally demand a total re-spray of the asset.
Many plant manufacturers now offer a service to supply new plant inany colour scheme and many large utility and construction companieshave taken advantage of this facility. In addition to the advertising
aspect mentioned above, personalised paint schemes may also form acomponent of corporate branding.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
27/52
19
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
MarkingLegitimate items of plant are marked as standard with a 17 digit VehicleIdentification Number (VIN) orProduct Identification Number (PIN). An
example of a typical manufacturers plant identification plate showing suchinformation as the VIN, engine serial number, transmission serial number
and year of manufacture is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Typical Manufacturers VIN Plate
Because VIN and PIN numbers are located in the same places on a given
type of plant item, criminals soon learn of these locations and hence
the numbers can more easily be removed or modified. It is therefore a
worthwhile security measure to add VIN or PIN identities in a number of
further visible and / or hidden locations.
Figure 5 shows a mini excavator having additional identification numbers
affixed to it in various places, using a deep imprint stamping method.
Taking actions such as this will increase the amount of work required by
thieves during processing to remove the additional identification, as well as
providing more chance of confirming the legitimate owner of a recovered
stolen item. Furthermore, evidence of identification numbers having
previously been removed (e.g. ground out) on a machine might give cause
for checking that it is not stolen.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
28/52
The marking of plant can be further classified into one of three types,
these being overt marking, concealed marking and covert marking. We will
consider each of these in a little more detail.
q Overt markings are intentionally clearly visible. Factory installed
markings include product identification plates and engraved
markings on major components. In addition to these standard markings
it is possible to add additional overt ones. These include adhesive strips
to warn potential thieves that the plant has extra covert markings, asset
labels bonded to the machine and the etching of VIN / PIN numbers
onto vehicle glass (in a similar way to that used for etching registration
numbers onto private cars see Figure 6).
20
Figure 5 Adding Identification to an Excavator Using DeepImprint Stamping
Figure 6 Overtly Etched Glass Highlighted within a Warning Sign
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
29/52
21
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
qConcealed-markings are additional VIN and PIN numbers that
manufacturers affix to plant in concealed locations, in case overt
numbers are destroyed or otherwise become unreadable (for example
due to everyday wear and tear). Their location is only revealed to
authorised organizations (i.e. with a genuine interest), such as plantrecovery companies or law enforcement agencies. Several specialist
companies offer a service to install extra concealed-marking using
a combination of stamping, etching and engraving. The exact locations
for a specific asset are stored on a secure database (see later) with the
information only made available to legitimate parties. Figures 7 and 8
show examples of how typical warning labels can be affixed to
a plant item to confirm that it has had concealed-marking applied to it.
In this context, the labels themselves become a deterrent.
Figure 7 Example of a Concealed-marking Warning Label: Clearly Visibleon an Excavator Arm
Figure 8 Example ofa Concealed-marking
Warning Label: With
Security Etching in a
Concealed Position
qCovert marking uses technology that is extremely difficult to detect
and equally as difficult to remove, as a means of personalising plant.
This method is also ideally used in conjunction with overt asset warning
labels (as above) to act as a deterrent to thieves. A typical systememploys a coded microchip transponder or electronic tag that
is hidden inside a component of the asset. Each tag is pre-programmed
with a unique serial number and because they are so small they are
virtually impossible to find. Identity tags are but one method of
covert plant identification a range of additional methods are listed in
Table 2.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
30/52
Arguably, the covert marking of plant coupled with suitable overt warning
of its presence might have the most significant effect on discouraging theft.
This combination reduces the risk (i.e. it puts the thief off stealing the item
in the first place) while also increasing the likelihood of recovery should the
item indeed be stolen (by making it identifiable and traceable to its owner).
PRACTICAL NOTE
Professional installation of covert marking is the most effective method of ensuring
thorough application, although for smaller plant items, DIY kits are available to do this.
A useful system for vehicle security is considered to be microdots, which each hold
upon their surface laser-etched plant owner information (see Figure 9). The use of
radio frequency tags is unregulated, with different manufacturers using different
frequencies, which requires the police forces to have numerous different detectors.
Table 2 Covert Marking Methods
Method Description
Micro-dotting
Microdots are less than 1mm in diameter. Upon them theyshow identifying information such as a unique ID numberfor the asset, the asset owners company name and contactinformation. Micro dots are applied by means of a spray(within special adhesives) or they may form a constituentof paint. They are detected by use of ultra-violet light andthe information on them is read using a microscope or other
(mobile) high-powered magnification method.
DNA Tagging
This is very similar to the concept of micro dotting butmuch more difficult to remove entirely from a plant item. Itcomprises synthetic DNA that has been encoded with thelegitimate plant owners details. It is so difficult to removebecause a trace will always remain in crevices and / or upon
rough surfaces to which it has been applied.
Chemical Tracing
This involves application to the plant item of a uniquechemical compound, that when forensically identified can beused to confirm the items owner. It is similar in many waysto DNA tagging and almost impossible to remove completelyfrom an asset to which it has been applied.
Radio FrequencyTags
This is a small device containing a microchip and an aerialwith identifying data stored on it. It can be installed inlocations that are hard to get at, such that it means they arevery time-consuming to remove. The microchip is read witha special hand-held electronic scanner designed for thatpurpose.
Radio FrequencyRead/Write Tags
Similar in many ways to radio frequency tags, but theinformation on the microchip can be modified by specialistmeans, thereby allowing plant identifying details to be keptup-to-date (for example, where change of asset ownership, orchange of contact details occurs).
Stamping/Etching
Additional identification numbers are applied in hiddenplaces by more simple or traditional methods. Records ofthese numbers and locations are kept secure on file, forfuture reference to help identify stolen plant.
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
22
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
31/52
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
23
Figure 9 Example of the Type of Information Held on a Microdot
Registration SchemesThe use of manufacturer applied VIN and PIN markings (and any other
proprietary marking systems) can only be used to effectively identify a
stolen plant item if a suitable audit trail for these types of identifier exists.
Currently there is no single, central register (similar to that of the Driver
and Vehicle Licensing Agency in the UK for road going vehicles) that holds
details of (for example), all plant VIN and PIN numbers, registered owners
and marking system(s). Instead, there are numerous individual databases
holding such information with many of the covert marking system
manufacturers maintaining their own databases as well4.
The CESAR scheme5 is a recently launched registration scheme that also
combines identifying technologies to any asset registered with it (e.g. visible
ID plate, RF tags and DNA coding) (Anon, 2007).
The various types of database that are available can be categorised as:
registration databases, marking databases and manufacturer databases.
q Registration databases are maintained commercially in return for
an initial registration fee and / or an annual fee. They typically
comprise a record of the subscribing legitimate owner and their plant
item(s), while the information held may include such things as
photographs, the VIN number and make / model details. Should
the item be stolen (and the database organisation informed)it will be highlighted as being so on the database. Subsequently,
interested parties such as auctioneers or sellers, potential buyers and
law enforcement agencies may contact the database organisation to
check if a specific plant item is listed as stolen.
4Smith and Walmsley (1999) did however point out that arguably the most comprehensive database of
stolen plant items is that held on the Police National Computer. However, for reasons of the way thedatabase is structured and the way therefore that data are entered onto it (for example, stolen plantitems are sometimes misclassified due to their specialist nature of intended application), it has beensuggested that it can be difficult to abstract meaningful data from that database for research purposes.5CESAR: The Construction Equipment Security and Registration Scheme.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
32/52
24
Limitations of the system include that not all plant is listed on such
databases; that a database is only as good as the accuracy of those
data held within it (e.g. data require updating where ownership changes
or items are scrapped); and that their effectiveness relies upon people
using the facility (e.g. to check if an item is listed as stolen prior to itspurchase). Some companies charge a fee for access to this kind of
data which may also discourage the systems optimal widespread
take-up and use.
q Marking databases contain information to link details of covert
marking systems to legitimate owners. The contact information for
these database organisations is generally provided on Warning
decals provided on the plant item, such as on windows or in the
operators cab (refer to Figures 6 and 7 earlier). These types of
database tend only to hold information for specific commercial
products, for example, a covert transponder manufacturer will
maintain its own database of its customers and their plant items.
Figure 10 shows a specimen registration document for an excavator
that has been entered onto a marking database. This example entry
identifies the exact locations of where the excavator has been
stamped, etched and engraved. It also shows that this plant item has
an electronic tag and that it has had microdots applied to it as well.
Figure 10 Specimen Marking Database Registration Document
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
33/52
25
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
q Manufacturer databases are sometimes maintained by other
commercial third-parties and comprise VIN and PIN information on
the first owners of the plant (and sometimes subsequent ones where
they are kept updated)
PRACTICAL NOTES
The National Plant and Equipment Register database facility liaises fully with police
forces and is a point of contact to check if any plant or equipment (e.g. that you propose
to buy) is stolen. See: http://www.ter-europe.org/.
A recent registration initiative (launched April 2007) is the Construction Equipment
Security and Registration Scheme (CESAR). Lead organiser is the Construction
Equipment Association. See: http://www.coneq.org.uk.
AlarmsThe main purpose of any alarm system is to raise awareness of an attempt
to steal the item to which it has been fitted; either as a way of summoning
help and / or of scaring the thief away. The system may be overt, in which
case it may also act as a deterrent prior to attempted theft, or it may be
hidden and designed to go off with an element of surprise if activated
during the theft process. With respect to larger plant and equipment, alarms
are usually activated when the operator cab is accessed illegitimately.
Alarms are typically audible, although alternative and more sophisticated
systems can send a signal when set off, for example, to a mobile phone.
One failing of alarms is that people might simply ignore them even whenthe alarm signals that a theft really is occurring. Another disadvantage is
that plant often operates in remote rural locations so an audible alarm used
in these conditions (i.e. one that cannot be heard by anyone) will provide
little deterrent.
Once fitted, a good alarm system should be hard to detect or overcome
and be able to resist attack for a minimum of six minutes.
Immobilisers
The fundamental purpose of immobilisers is to prevent the activation ofone, or more, systems on a plant item, such as the engine, a hydraulic
system, an electrical system or any combination of these. This in turn
prevents the item from, for example, being started, operated or moved. In
the case of self-propelled plant, immobilisation also avoids transportation
under the equipments own power or its self-propelled loading onto another
vehicle (such as a low-loader) for removal.
Methods of immobilisation may be categorised under the three groupings
of electronic immobilisers, hydraulic immobilisers and mechanical
immobilisers.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
34/52
q Electronic immobilisers work on electrical systems within the item to
which they are fitted and resultantly deactivate things such as brakes,
steering or other essential plant controls. As plant technology becomes
more advanced and the use of electronic engine management systems
becomes more commonplace (encouraged also by the need to reduceengine emissions), there is increasing scope for the use of these
electronic systems, to operate (or not, to be more precise!) and act as
immobilisers to completely disable plant. The type of immobiliser
selected must be able to withstand the extremities of exposure and the
general wear and tear inflicted upon it, as a result of the harsh
operating environments within which plant tends to work. The plant
owner should therefore be aware that although there are a large
range of immobilisers available, many would be unsuitable for this type
of exposure. Consultation with a specialist supplier is advised.
q Hydraulic immobilisers operate by immobilising the hydraulic systemthat typically controls the movement of backhoes, loading shovels and
a variety of other appendages. These types of immobiliser can also be
employed to lock equipment in a certain posture such that it becomes
difficult to transport or, because of the way it is locked in position, will
look suspicious if the plant is being moved by a thief. Both electronic
and hydraulic immobilisers are installed and become an integral part
of the plant item. Normally they are operated by the use of keys, coded
keypads or small radio frequency tags (for example on plant key rings).
q Mechanical immobilisers work by physically restraining part of a plant
item. Common methods include physical (lockable) restraints forhydraulic rams, booms, tracks, legs and wheels. Though very often
simple in design, they can be highly effective and particularly suited
to smaller plant that normally lack more sophisticated systems such
as concealed immobilisers (and equally, physical mechanical locks
are typically less suitable for larger plant because their required larger
size would make them difficult to use and move manually). Mechanical
immobilisers are also more capable of preventing the lifting (for
removal) or towing away of smaller plant items. A range of mechanical
immobilisers is described in further detail, in Table 3.
26
PRACTICAL NOTESElectronic and hydraulic immobilisation systems are perhaps better suited to mediumor larger sized plant and equipment where mechanical immobilisation is impractical(due to the physical size and hence weight of the devices required).
The use of mechanical immobilisers must be well managed. Operators must befully trained in their use and be encouraged to apply them in practice! If the dailyinstallation of mechanical immobilisers is forgotten or neglected by an operator, thentheir effectiveness is removed altogether.
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
35/52
27
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
Immobiliser Type Features
Tracklock
A device that is suited to mini or midi sized tracked plant. Itis fitted to inhibit the movement of the tracks and can be usedto secure the plant item to a trailer or some other large secureor heavy object using a security chain.
Trailerlock/Hitchlock
These immobilise trailers or trailer-mounted plant such aselectricity generators and air compressors, by preventing theuse of the hitching mechanism. They can also accommodatea security chain to anchor the device to some other object asdescribed for the Tracklock.
Ramlock
This is fitted to a fully extended hydraulic ram, therebypreventing the movement of the rams hydraulic piston. It
is generally installed on the steering ram. (Note: a ramlockcan become difficult and cumbersome to use on larger plantitems).
Wheel Clamp
A highly effective means of securing wheel-mountedmachines (similar to those used for illegal parking of roadgoing vehicles). There are modified / reinforced versions forcommercial use.
Leglock
This locks the stabiliser leg(s) in a lowered position by meansof a mechanism installed to the leg. This way a vehicle cannotbe moved (until the leg is raised again). Generally consideredeffective and easy to use.
Table 3 Some Types of Mechanical Immobilisers and TheirTypical Application
Recovery DevicesTracking and recovery systems provide accurate location of plant via radio,satellite and cellular technologies. These kinds of device are an aid to crime
detection rather than crime prevention and because of their effectiveness,
they should be very seriously considered for the higher risk or more costly
plant items.
Trackers can either be remotely activated after a theft, or be proactive
whereby movement or geofence violations cause the tracker to activate
automatically. Information may then be accessed via a PC, laptop or mobile
phone. More sophisticated systems utilise Secure Operating Centres (SOC)
to provide a 24 hour, 7 days a week, 365 days a year service. These kindsof systems should also attract insurance incentives for plant owners that
use them.
Until recently, there were only two broad forms of tracking device available,
these being radio frequency (RF) transmitters and Global Position System
(GPS) satellite systems. A more recent development utilises the (mobile
phone) Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) location facility.
Devices which combine GSM and RF location are proving exceptionally
effective.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
36/52
q Radio frequency transmitters, when activated, emit radio frequency
pulses that can be detected by police forces within the UK (i.e. that are
within the vicinity of a stolen vehicle with an RF transmitter fitted to it) or
in some cases, by the system providers.
q GPS satellite systems offer real-time location of plant fitted with this
kind of device. Upon activation, the monitoring company can determine
the plants location and this can be updated every few seconds to
therefore track plant in transit. GPS plant management systems also
allow owners or plant managers to monitor the current and historic
locations of their fleet. Note however, that GPS systems can be power
hungry and are likely therefore to need wiring into an assets
power supply.
q GSM location systems are benefiting from the increased accuracy
required by directives such as E9116. GSM location also has
advantages over GPS in that the tracking device can be detected
even when hidden undercover or when hidden inside a steel container.
When considering recovery devices, the aspect of transferability is worthy
of some consideration. Many tracking systems cannot be transferred and
in effect have to be written off when the asset to which they are affixed is
changed or replaced. Whilst some systems can be transferred at a cost,
very few can be transferred without cost. Generally, wired tracker systems
cannot be transferred by owners whereas wire free systems can be easier
to install and transfer any time thereafter. The latter are also more difficult
to detect by potential thieves in that there is no wiring, antenna lead orvisible antenna associated with them.
The costs associated with recovery devices have two components. The
first component is the capital cost of the device and any related cost of its
installation. This can typically range from capital cost plus zero installation
cost for some of the no wire interface systems, up to 2,500 (capital cost
plus installation cost) for more complex arrangements. However, exact
figures will of course vary from manufacturer to manufacturer and between
system types.
The second component is annual subscription. This can typically range
from 120 to 500 dependant on the service subscribed to. The fee is
paid to a management company to cover fees, user licenses, monitoring
services and in some cases private finding services. The service provider
will normally contact owners in the event of a theft to initiate and manage
the tracking process.
28
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
6The wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) rules. These deal with improved effectiveness of wireless 911
service and provision of additional information on wireless 911 calls. See: http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
37/52
29
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
Figure 11 Typical Theft Detection Recovery Report
PRACTICAL NOTE
The National Plant and Equipment Register advice on theft recovery includes to:
qconsider installing tracking and theft recovery systems;
qgive preference to a theft recovery system with an independent power source,
that is also unobtrusive, easily concealed and which can be moved from asset to
asset; and
qonly inform personnel that a theft recovery system has been fitted to an asset (or
any other detail relating to the system such as where it is fitted or what type it is) if
you have to.
Source: TER (2006B, p10).
Specialist tracking services will often use a Secure Operating Centre
(SOC) which generally provides a service 24 / 7, 365 days per year to
monitor and co-ordinate finding and recovery between plant owners, the
police, the insurance company and the find and recovery team. SOCs
can be external to the tracking system provider and will typically also bemonitoring fire and security alarms for banks, businesses and schools etc.
Plant owners that require theft recovery tracking should seek services with
the appropriate SOC quality assurance, such as CE FC ISO 9001 and
certification to NSAI Standard 228.
Detection Recovery Reports are typically used to help administer theft
recovery operations within the SOC, while also providing an event log for
traceability and quality assurance purposes. Figure 11 shows a typical
Detection Recovery Report .
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
38/52
30
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
Source: Based on Smith and Walmsley (1999).
Method Comments
Perimeter Fencing
Secure fencing around the place of work and / or plantstorage to limit access wherever possible. Types of fence canrange from temporary systems to more robust and permanentforms.
Security Lighting
In terms of theft risk, it is safer to store plant in a well lit area.Consideration can be given to using motion-activated securitylighting, which can identify when a person approaches an
asset and may also act as a deterrent.
Closed-circuitTelevision (CCTV)
The cost of CCTV systems has reduced considerably and they can also be combined with computer technology.Wireless, portable CCTV systems are available for internalor external use. Remote access allows video feeds to bemonitored or recorded at a central location, desktop PC,laptop or mobile phone.
Intruder Alarms
These are best suited to semi-permanent and permanentinstallations. Additional configurations include covert systems,immediate police callout, warning phone calls and SMSmessages (when the alarm is activated).
General Access
Security Systems
These tend to be based on lockable access gates,management of personnel movement and good entrance
lighting. May also be combined with CCTV.
Key Security
Keys should always be stored in lockable places and bemanaged such that keys are signed in and out. A separatekey to activate self-propelled plant is desirable to single keysystems.
Security GuardsIf costs permit their use, 24 hour guards represent aconsiderable deterrent against all kinds of intrusion or theft.
Security SignageWell designed and sensibly located signage acts as a visualdeterrent to potential thieves.
Table 4 Examples of How to Improve Site Security
Site Security
In addition to plant-specific anti-theft systems, the security of the site upon
which a plant item is stored or working can have a large impact on the
likelihood of its theft. It is generally accepted that if a plant item is easy toaccess and / or to remove from its place of work or storage, then security
on the item itself is somewhat made redundant.
While it is appreciated that much plant is operated within environments
where more permanent security measures would not be cost effective to
install, there are a number of good practice actions that can be taken to
reduce theft risk. Some of these, as advocated by the Home Office, are
listed in Table 4.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
39/52
31
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
Installation and Testing of Security Systems
To ensure maximum effectiveness, it is essential that all security systems
are installed exactly as recommended by the system manufacturer and fully
tested prior to their use. Poor installation might impair a systems abilityto operate as designed, or reduce its effective attack time (i.e. reduce
the time a system can withstand attack by a thief attempting to remove or
disable it).
Ideally, wired systems should be installed to Vehicle System Installation
Board (VSIB) requirements, or equivalent. This may be achieved by
using VSIB approved companies or plant manufacturer recommended
companies. An installer must be experienced at fitting systems specifically
in commercial plant, because there is a considerable difference in the
complexity of plant installation in comparison to standard road vehicles, forexample.
Some security system manufacturers have their products tested by
independent testing houses such as Sold Secure orThe Motor Insurance
Repair Research Centre (Thatcham) to gain a category rating (see
Further Information section for website and contact details). This security
rating is based on attack trials which are carried out to establish the types
of attack that a product can withstand and for what period(s) of time it can
withstand them. It must be noted that it is not mandatory for devices to
conform to these standards and manufacturers submit devices for approval
only if they so desire.
What to do if a Theft Occurs
It is difficult to be totally prescriptive as to the actions to take if an item
of plant is stolen, as each site, item of plant and working environment
(etc.) will be different, so specific actions may vary from circumstance
to circumstance. However, there is some basic advice that should be
considered and will apply to most instances.
First, upon realising a theft has occurred, the plant owner (or operator)
should act immediately to set the reporting and administration process
in place. This will involve notifying relevant parties, which will probably
include the police (remember to keep a record of any crime number the
insurance company will normally require this), the asset insurer in the case
of owned plant (or the hirer if the asset has been hired) and the registration
or tracking company, if recovery devices are fitted to the stolen item.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
40/52
32
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
Regarding the actual scene of the theft, this should be left undisturbed
if possible so that police can investigate it for evidence. Details of any
witnesses should be recorded before they leave the scene and other
relevant information might be noted, such as the approximate time of the
theft, what is believed to have happened and who for example, was the lastperson to see the asset before it was taken.
With respect to the stolen item, it must be appreciated that the police can
only begin to find it, if they have reliable and precise information about
it. Ideally, this will all be listed on the plant registration or identification
document, or from a report generated by an in-house asset database for
example. If no such formal documents exist, then the owner will need to
compile relevant information for the police including:
q machine make and model;
q colour and other distinguishing or identifying features;
q VIN or PIN number;
q other serial numbers if relevant, such as the engine number; and
q a list of any stolen appendages or attachments such as buckets,
breakers or consumables.
This is not necessarily an exhaustive list and generally, too much
information about the item is better than not enough.
In short, in the event of theft occurring:
q act right away;
q inform relevant parties;
q preserve evidence; and
q provide authorities with accurate information on the asset.
Remember to report to all relevant parties should the stolen plant item be
recovered!
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
41/52
How to Minimise the Risk of Plant and Equipment Theft
33
What of the Future?
It is of course prudent for owners and operators to take full advantage of
advancements in anti-theft or theft-recovery technologies; perhaps a most
recent example of this is the use of GSM for asset tracking and locationfinding purposes.
Potential areas for future development may include swipe or electronic
(micro-chipped) keys, fobs or cards to be used for access to plant and
for activation of engines and (electronic, hydraulic) systems; either as a
replacement or as a complement to key-operated security systems. There
may also be scope for biometrics to be applied to access or key systems
where, for example, an individuals personal characteristics (fingerprints,
facial features, hand measurements etc.) may become an essential part of
a plant items activation (e.g. start-up) process.
While as in any subject it is difficult to accurately predict the future, in this
context the overriding aim has to be, that plant and equipment owners
keep ahead of the criminal in applying any advancements in anti-theft
technology.
Summary
There are numerous ways in which plant and equipment can be modified
in order to minimise the risk of theft occurring and / or to maximise theprobability of recovery should theft unfortunately have taken place. These
systems may be broadly defined as deterrent (to deter the temptation of
theft), preventative (to make the act of theft as difficult as possible) and
recovery (to maximise the possibility of recovering stolen items).
Arguably, the best system will comprise a hybrid of all these and should be
installed and tested professionally. In view of the greatly diverse range of
plant and equipment security systems available (and their equally diverse
range of operating environments), systems must be selected with care.
Specialist advice and close consultation with system manufacturers may becalled for.
Should an owner become a victim of theft, general advice is to act right
away, preserve evidence and witnesses, and inform all relevant parties with
accurate asset information.
Plant owners and operators must maintain an awareness of the risk of plant
theft and accordingly, keep ahead of criminals by using any technological
advancements that are made in anti-theft and theft-recovery systems.
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
42/52
34
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
43/52
35
Plant and equipment theft is not only inconvenient for its victims, but in
addition, is normally accompanied by significant negative impact on thevictims business operations, such as delay in work progress, interruption to
productivity and a loss of client goodwill.
The costs of becoming a victim extend beyond simply those of the stolen
plant item. They also include numerous additional indirect costs to the
owners business such as administration of the theft reporting and recovery
process, hire of replacement plant to maintain workflow, insurance excess
payments and increased insurance premiums. There is also a social cost
that might be described in terms of distress or trauma.
While some recent statistics do show a slight downturn in certain plant and
equipment thefts, the extent of the problem remains immense and may be
conveniently stated to represent a direct cost of approximately 1 million
per week within the UK. Indeed, the international demand for stolen plant
looks set to ensure that the risk of theft will always exist. Excavators of all
types remain a favourite target for the thief.
The basic advice therefore, has to be to encourage action on the part of
plant hirers, owners and operators to do all that is reasonably practicable
to:
q try and discourage the thief from taking plant (DETER);
q try and make the process of theft as difficult as possible
(PREVENT); and
q maximise the probability of tracing and identifying stolen items
(RECOVER).
However, it has previously been highlighted that these responsibilities
embrace numerous other parties too, including plant and equipmentmanufacturers, security system manufacturers, the police and insurance
companies. A description of how plant theft can be tackled jointly by all
these stakeholders is shown in Table 5.
Concluding Summary
Conclusion
7/28/2019 Plant and Equipment Theft a Practical Guide
44/52
36
Party Responsible Typical Responsibilities
Plant Owners
Keep auditable, secure records of plant (e.g. VIN and PINnumbers); maintain an up-to-date asset database or usea commercial plant registration database; install securitysystems commensurate with the risk (taking into account thework location); pay particular attention to protecting higherrisk plant; be clear as to the lines of responsibility for security;provide adequate advice and support about security andsecurity systems for plant users and operators; engendera security minded approach throughout the workplace.Thoroughly check prospective hire clients and ask forreferences prior to releasing valuable plant.
Plant Operators
Use plant security systems where they are provided in exact
accordance with guidance; observe and contribute to general(e.g. site) security; report suspicious activities or perceivedsecurity risks; take personal responsibility; and comply withemployers security instructions.
Plant and EquipmentManufacturers
Research, continue to develop and engineer-in to plantimproved security measures as inherent features; increasethe marking of equipment and its sub-components withidentifying features.
Security SystemManufacturers
Continue to strive for advancements in anti-theft technologies;ensure good consumer awareness of available systems;encourage use of systems particularly for higher risk asset