Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 4:00 am
Time: 4:00 am
Results for metal theft (u.k.)
4 results foundAuthor: English Heritage Title: Theft of Metal From Church Buildings, September 2011 replacing the 2008 guidance note Summary: This guidance note sets out English Heritage’s response to the epidemic of lead theft which is affecting historic buildings and, in particular, parish churches. We recognise that any theft brings frustration, expense and inconvenience to congregations. Preventing future thefts is paramount, but dealing with the unfortunate aftermath in an appropriate way is also very important. This guidance is in two parts: the first outlines English Heritage’s approach and our advice for congregations on the significance of lead, how to protect it, and how to respond to thefts; the second offers detailed practical information about selecting the material to be used for historic church roofs and making it secure. Details: London, UK: English Heritage, 2011. 25p. Source: English Heritage Guidance Note: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 27, 2012 at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/publications/docs/theft-metal-church-buildings.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/publications/docs/theft-metal-church-buildings.pdf Shelf Number: 123843 Keywords: ChurchesMetal Theft (U.K.) |
Author: Sloman, Anne Title: Church Buildings Council: Report of the working party on metal theft Summary: Metal theft, and in particular the theft of lead from church roofs, is the most serious problem facing the maintenance of the nation’s historic legacy of church buildings at the moment. There are no national police statistics and so our best source of information is Ecclesiastical Insurance Group (EIG), the main insurer of Anglican churches. In the past eight years they have seen an increase in claims from 6 to 1763 a year, the annual cost rising from £18,000 to £3.3m, a dramatic increase. Nearly £23m over the past 5 years. The cost of the claims reflects just a fraction of the cost of the crime. In recent years Ecclesiastical has had to put a cap on the amount that it will pay out on claims for lead theft to prevent it from becoming an uninsurable risk. Collateral damage caused during the crime and afterwards, for example from rain water, is considerable. The cost of metal theft to the UK as a whole is estimated to be at least £770m. This is not a victimless crime. The victims are those very people the government are trying to encourage to embrace the vision of the Big Society. They are churchwardens and members of Parochial Church Councils (PCCs) who are at the heart of their communities working hard to maintain historic buildings, to keep them open for worship and available to serve the areas where they live in a whole variety of ways. Coping with one theft of a church roof is disheartening, coping with successive thefts, as is often the case, is heart breaking, particularly when water pouring causes irreparable damage to the building and its contents. The Institute of British Organ Building has reported for three years now the number of organ restorations following water damage consequent on lead theft. Over thirteen such cases were noted in 2010, including a significant historic organ at St Hilda, South Shields, only recently restored. The widespread perception that the police are indifferent to this crime is not helpful to the social cohesion of these communities. For example, of four churches in the Oldham area that had lead stolen, some with repeat thefts, the police were extremely slow to respond, in two instances taking more than a week and on one occasion the response was to issue a crime number, without visiting the site. There has never been a requirement for forces to keep specific data on metal theft as there is no distinct crime code (with the exception of the British Transport Police). Metal theft is currently recorded under a range of categories, ranging from ‘other theft’ to criminal damage. We urge the Home Office to look at this. The lack of prosecutions compounds the problem. There are instances of the CPS failing to prosecute even when a thief has been caught committing a crime. This report was prepared by a working party of the Church Buildings Council, a Statutory Body with responsibility for the care, development and use of Church of England churches. The working party was chaired by Anne Sloman, Chair of the Council. It included senior representatives from Ecclesiastical Insurance and dioceses affected, and took evidence from a range of interested parties including the Second Estates Commissioner, Tony Baldry MP, the police and the scrap metal industry. Its remit was the problem of lead theft from Churches, but as Ministers will be aware the problem is not confined to churches. Network Rail, British Telecom, schools, local authorities, and the gas and electricity networks are also suffering extensively from this crime. The group makes eight recommendations for Government action and commits the Church to good practice over reporting crime and the threat of crime as well as cooperating with basic security measures. This is a serious crime which at times of financial stringency is costing the country a huge amount of money and urgently needs to be addressed nationwide by Government action led by the Home Office. Details: London: Church Buildings Council, Archibishops' Council, The Church of England, 2011. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2012 at http://www.churchcare.co.uk/pdf_view.php?id=246 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.churchcare.co.uk/pdf_view.php?id=246 Shelf Number: 124530 Keywords: Churches (U.K.)Metal Theft (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. Local Government Association Title: Metal Theft Survey 2012 Summary: In February 2012 councils in England and Wales were invited to take part in a survey which asked whether they had been affected by metal theft since April 2009, what the consequences were if they had been and for their opinions on how to tackle the problem. The survey found seven out of ten (71 per cent) of councils had suffered metal thefts over the period and only 12 per cent had not had any thefts. The most commonly stolen items were gully/drainage/manhole covers which were taken from one third of respondents (32 per cent), followed by roofing material which were stolen from a quarter (24 per cent). These thefts cost councils up to £117,500 in 2009/10, although this figure was slightly lower at £100,000 in 2010/11. The median amount of costs incurred by councils was £11,125 in 2009/10, this increased by 26 per cent in 2010/11 to £14,000. Six per cent of councils have been sued as a result of metal theft and major consequences included a member of the public falling down a gully and the closure of a main road. Four in ten councils (39 per cent) have prosecuted thieves and/or scrap metal dealers over the past three years. In three quarters of cases (76 per cent) they were prosecuted for metal theft and in just under half (48 per cent) the legal action was brought for handling stolen goods. Councils are taking steps to tackle the problem by using non-metallic alternatives and by using anti-theft measures such as CCTV and the use of smart water marking. Over half of the survey respondents thought that they should be given powers to deal with unscrupulous scrap metal dealers, including closure of illegally trading sites, the introduction of a cashless payment system and a requirement for better record keeping. There was also strong support for dealers to be licensed by councils and three quarters (75 per cent) of those in favour felt that councils should be able to set the license fees based on a full cost recovery basis. Details: London: Local Government Association, 2012. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 21, 2012 at http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2065cc75-537d-400f-a4b4-26d65b3c8a32&groupId=10171 Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2065cc75-537d-400f-a4b4-26d65b3c8a32&groupId=10171 Shelf Number: 126072 Keywords: Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) (U.K.)Metal Theft (U.K.)Stolen Property (U.K.)Theft Offenses (U.K.) |
Author: Morgan, Nick Title: An evaluation of government/law enforcement interventions aimed at reducing metal theft Summary: Executive summary - While most acquisitive crimes have fallen consistently over the past five years, metal theft increased between 2009 and 2011 in line with a sharp rise in global metal prices. It then fell during 2012 and 2013. - This paper summarises results of analyses which aimed to test whether the decline from 2012 was caused primarily by the government/law enforcement interventions launched to address metal theft, or was simply due to metal prices falling back from their peak. - The analysis is based mainly on data for metal thefts held by the Energy Networks Association (ENA), though data from British Transport Police (BTP) are also used to verify the main results. The phased roll-out of Operation Tornado across England and Wales helps to identify the specific impact of the interventions, as distinct from other factors that might have contributed to the fall in metal thefts. - The analysis found that metal thefts recorded by the Energy Networks Association and by British Transport Police fell to levels far lower during 2012 and 2013 than would be expected from the drop in metal prices alone. - This implies that the interventions launched during that period, Operation Tornado and cashless trading at scrap metal dealers (described below), did contribute to a substantial reduction in the number of offences. - Analysis showed a large, statistically significant effect for the interventions even when controlling for metal prices and other factors driving acquisitive crime. - Scotland, which did not receive the interventions, had a rising trend in metal theft during the post-intervention period, according to the Energy Networks Association data. This adds further weight to the main finding, and suggests that some metal theft may have been displaced north of the border. - As with most retrospective evaluations, there are necessary limitations with both the data and the methodology employed, but these findings are in line with the limited existing evidence from other nations. Details: London: Home Office, 2015. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report 80: Accessed January 28, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398511/horr80.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398511/horr80.pdf Shelf Number: 134480 Keywords: Crime PreventionMetal Theft (U.K.)Property Theft Scrap Metal Theft Stealing |