Report on Operation Reclaim (the roll out across territorial policing of the power to seize vehicles being driven without insurance/other than in accordance with a driving licence

Report: 08
Date: 17 April 2008
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing for the Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines the considerable benefits of a roll out of the power of seizure to all Territorial Policing (TP) officers, and recommends the deployment of staff, resources and equipment to enable the operation to work efficiently and to generate additional income.

A. Recommendations

That Members support the roll out of the power of seizure to all TP officers.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. Section 165a of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (enacted in 2005) gives police officers in uniform the power to seize vehicles being driven without insurance and/or otherwise than in accordance with a driving licence.

2. In the MPS area, based on statistics for uninsured driving claims, the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) estimates that there are 435,000 uninsured vehicles, with the numbers steadily rising. The number of vehicles being driven other than in accordance with a licence is impossible to determine, but is believed to be substantial.

3. Traffic Operational Command Unit (CO15) until recently owned the policy that dictated how the power of seizure would be used in the MPS. The Standard Operating Procedures stated that only CO15 officers could use the said powers. CO15 seized 10,000 vehicles in the financial year 2006/7 with all the vehicles being taken to the MPS car pounds at Perivale and Charlton. The policy has now moved to TP.

4. With a view to identifying the benefits that would accrue from this power being available to all TP officers, an operation commenced in Hounslow in 2006 with members of the Heston Safer Neighbourhood Team exercising the powers. This resulted in 3000 vehicles being seized in one year and total recorded crime in Heston ward fell by 30%.

5. This level of benefit is supported by Operation Tango in Merseyside (the force-wide roll out of the power), which is claimed to have contributed to a 9% decrease in overall crime and particularly a 40% decrease in motor vehicle crime (Merseyside Police Local Strategy and Local Policing Plan 2007/8).

6. There are a number of other potential business benefits, the most prominent of which are:

• Criminal disruption (dip samples have shown that more than half of vehicles seized were being driven by people with criminal records)
• Removal of unroadworthy vehicles (currently around 25% of vehicles seized are sent for scrap)
• Environmental benefits (vehicles sent for scrap are usually old, poorly maintained and therefore the most polluting)
• Positive response from the public (anti-social use of vehicles frequently features among community concerns)

7. Up until April 2008 five boroughs in the MPS were using the power of seizure with vehicles being taken to MPS pounds. They are: Hammersmith, Ealing, Lewisham, Hillingdon and Brent.

8. However, due to the award of new contracts for MPS vehicle recoveries effective from 1 April 2008, it has been necessary to further incorporate four other boroughs that have been using the power of seizure outside TP control. These are Hounslow, Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest. These boroughs were using contractors under local agreements, and at variance with the newly awarded contracts.

9. It is against the above backdrop, and recognising the potential for crime reduction accompanied by income generation, that Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing proposes that the power of seizure should be rolled out to all TP officers.

10. Exercising the power of seizure is likely to contribute directly to the four MPS Strategic Outcomes for 2007-10:

• Communities are engaged with, confident in and satisfied with our service;
• Safety and security is improved and the public feel reassured;
• Crime, disorder, vulnerability and harm are prevented and reduced;
• More offences brought to justice.

11. The current seizure and storage fees for recovery of the seized vehicles are £105 and £12 per day respectively. This is due to rise to £150 and £20 respectively in October 2008. The vehicles cannot be released until a valid insurance certificate and driving licence are produced.

12. In addition to the vehicle seizure, the officer issues an Endorsable Fixed Penalty Notice (FPNE) or completes a Process Book if appropriate. The current fine attached to such an FPN is £200 with an additional licence endorsement of six penalty points. The MPS does not earn income from this activity other than by way of recovery of court costs (up to £70 per case after a finding of guilt).

13. There are therefore considerable income generation possibilities, which sit alongside the business benefits. However, these are, in part, off set by the potential costs which would be incurred by the Traffic Criminal Justice Unit (CO16) in processing the FPNEs. The MPS will need to consider the use of any surplus income generated as part of the Service’s normal decision making processes.

Effect on sustainable development

14. There are clear environmental benefits in removing the most polluting vehicles from the roads. These will more than off-set the small increase in levels of energy use and carbon dioxide emissions associated with the vehicle removal process.

15. There will also be an increase in the level of recycling as a result of vehicles being scrapped or broken for parts.

C. Race and equality impact

1. There is no evidence to suggest that any one group within the community is likely to be affected by the implementation of the vehicle seizure operation. However, it is the intention that data will be monitored and reported upon on an on-going basis.

2. It is important to note that vehicle seizure figures relate to people who have actually been found to have no insurance or no driving licence. The error rate in relation to the detection of these offences is extremely low. In addition many of the seizures will be from ANPR activations which can have no bias.

3. The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) specifically outlines that consideration should be given to the likely impact on vulnerable groups, prior to any decision to seize a vehicle. This would include those with disabilities.

D. Financial implications

Capital

1. The only capital costs associated with the implementation of operation Reclaim relate to the need for additional accommodation for CO16. The MPA acquired the freehold interest in Marlowe House in August 2005 and there is one half floor that has been used by an operational team (SCD) that is no longer needed (confirmed January 2008). PSD have suggested that this space, which will accommodate in the region of 50 desks spaces plus breakout space would meet the Operation Reclaim teams' requirements.

2. The accommodation has Aware connectivity but will require the removal of extant partitioning, installation of new ceiling and lighting, and possibly power and data supply upgrades as well as carpeting and works to windows. At this stage, Property Services' estimate that the cost of this works to be in the region of £600,000 for this space and these costs would be treated as capital items as they are upgrading accommodation and increasing usable space and floor occupancy. There would be no addition revenue costs (aside from the costs of power supplies to this floor),

3. Currently there is no identified funding for these works and there is no provision in the 7-year capital programme. This cost would need to be dealt with as a Revenue Contribution to Capital Outlay from the net income generated.

4. At this stage and in the timeline these are broad estimates. If support is given to this solution PSD will undertake a feasibility study in order to take this forward for funding in line with agreed approval processes.

Revenue

1. The table below identifies the existing costs associated with both VRES and Central Traffic CJU (CO16), together with the estimated financial impact of all boroughs being included in Operation Reclaim. There is no financial impact on the Territorial Policing budgets, as existing officers will carry out the function. An estimate has been given for a range of vehicle seizures and the impact on the Medium Term Financial Plan (mtfp) shown, compared with the current budget provision. The income and expenditure relating to 2007/08 have already been built into the VRES forecast and have not been included in the business case. However the rollout programme reflects the fact that five boroughs are already undertaking vehicle seizures and a further four boroughs are due to go live in April.

2. The financial implications of Operation Reclaim  are based on the VRES estimates of both income and expenditure associated with increasing the number of vehicles seized and transported to the MPS car pounds. The recovery and storage expenditure is based upon historical figures, now confirmed in the retendering process. (see Appendix 1)

3. The income figures are based around the current rate at which their owners reclaim vehicles which is 75%. The percentage rate of reclaim at which the Operation fails to generate a surplus income is between 30% (for 70k vehicles) and 40% (for 35k vehicles). There is thus a large margin to cater for fluctuations in the rate of vehicle restoration.

4. The income figures are based on the revised statutory fees due to be introduced in October 2008.

5. The underlying assumption is that the volumes can be managed initially within the existing facilities and by month 6 of the roll out by using overflow arrangements for offsite storage, if that becomes necessary. This assumption has been built into the above cost/income figures. As a result of increased volumes, there will also be an impact on the Central Traffic CJU (CO16), in terms of processing FPNs, and the additional costs (both staff and non- staff) have been shown for each increased volume.

6. The figures above show the impact of achieving a maximum level of extra 70k vehicles and also the impact of seizing 50k and 35k extra vehicles per annum. The numbers above are based on a managed rollout across all boroughs, not reaching maximum levels until the end of 2008/09, and that numbers are maintained at the same level from 2009/10. This does cause an issue in terms of long term sustainability if the number of vehicles seized reduces in future years, especially if the target of 70,000 is achieved in 2009/10. This can be managed within the VRES arrangements because if numbers decrease, costs will also decrease.

7. Should however the volume continue to meet the higher levels, it will be necessary to bring two contractor pounds on line in NE and SW London. This expectation was included within the recent tendering process as a provisional item and therefore could be introduced without the need to undertake a further tendering process. Again the additional costs have been built into the above table.

8. The main issue will be the staffing of CO16 which varies between the options. There is an option to increase CO16 staff to meet a 35k demand and then employ temporary staff to meet any increased demand, up to the 70k figure. The figures above clearly indicate that even if the decision was to staff up to the max level, and that demand was only 35k, then a surplus would still be generated and still enable the overall non-financial objectives of the project to be achieved.

9. The costs above do not include any provision for increased training costs for officers in TP who would be seizing vehicles. These are likely to be minimal and could be achieved by a short (45 minutes) distance-learning package.

10. The capital costs identified above have not been reflected in the revenue table and would need to be funded from a revenue Contribution to Capital Outlay from the net income shown in the table.

E. Background papers

• Finance Committee, 24 January 2008, Report 12: Approval sought to award the vehicle removal and storage contract (s)

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Ian Elliott. TP Volume Crime Directorate, MPS

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback