‘The motor insurance sector has been grappling with a surge in vehicle theft – a problem most prevalent in the high-value vehicle market’ with a ‘25% year-on-year increase’ according to ‘consumer intelligence’.
Whilst the scarcity of available used cars may have an effect, criminals potentially retaining the vehicles for personal use, or selling on, the latter appears less likely.
As the only ‘adverse history’ investigators for Vehicle Provenance companies (who provide DVLA, stolen, total loss and finance checks), we have seen a marked drop in claims for ‘clones’. This suggests stolen vehicles are being broken for parts or shipped abroad.
This possibly also accounts for the lack of vehicle recovery, as high as 80% some 20 years ago but now just 6% reported by Kent police.
Given the ‘cost of living crisis’ it appears more bizarre that constabularies, such as Kent, have recorded almost zero false theft allegations. Seemingly no one is alleging vehicle theft to dispose of a financial burden and those vehicles apparently stolen, found crashed, cause no eyebrows to be raised; just ‘give them a crime reference number for insurance purposes’ (Suella Braverman)*
It appears accepted the police do not investigate (Kent knew how to), but why would they obstruct others doing so and delay the resolution of a claim. It is one thing to be the victim of a theft, it is quite another to find, contrary to ‘guidance’, that some constabularies are not supporting victims of crime by expediting the finalisation of their insurance claim (Agreement)
Possibly the dramatic increase in premiums will provide another incentive for some to ‘suffer a theft’ … but who will know?
*Ms Braverman said she had come across “far too many complaints” from people who had things stolen and “calling up the police only to be given a crime reference number for insurance purposes“.