Your stolen car might be in Jamaica, but can you guess why?
Car theft is still a major issue in the UK. According to the DVLA, just under 63,000 cars were reported stolen in 2024, with only 20 per cent of them recovered within the first seven days. New research has revealed where more than half of these stolen cars are ending up.
An investigation from Thatcham Research and the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (NaVCIS) named the the top five countries for stolen vehicle exports. The Democratic Republic of Congo is the most likely destination for your stolen car to be shipped to, with 38.5 per cent of intercepted cars sent to the African state. That's followed by the UAE (20.1 per cent), Cyprus (6.7 per cent), Jamaica (5.7 per cent) and Georgia (5.1 per cent).
Although DRC is the destination for most stolen vehicles, it's thought that many of them head into other African countries. DRC's central positioning on the African continent, deep seaport and borders with nine countries make it an ideal distribution hub for other markets.
When it comes to the types of vehicles targeted by organised crime gangs in the UK, 52 per cent of the vehicles intercepted by NaVCIS were from premium and luxury manufacturers and 79 per cent of all interceptions were SUVs.
There are some unexpected reasons for certain countries receiving the most stolen vehicles. Last April's flooding in the UAE led to a rise in thefts of one popular SUV model, for example. Criminal groups exploited the shortage of official replacement vehicles and spare parts by using stolen ones.
You might guess why Cyprus and Jamaica appear near the top of the stolen car leaderboard. Both countries drive on the left, making UK vehicle specifications and steering wheel positions important. Cyprus also serves as a gateway to Mediterranean markets, while Jamaica's trade has increased due to an imported car tariff boosting profitability.
Georgia is also seen as a potential gateway to Russia, where the withdrawal of an official presence by car makers has led to an increase in demand for vehicles and parts.
Commenting on the investigation, Richard Billyeald, Chief Research and Operations Officer at Thatcham Research, said 'the UK has the highest levels of standard security equipment fitted to new vehicles. The result is that the casual theft and joy riding of the 80s and 90s has all but disappeared, with vehicle manufacturers having succeeded in making it very difficult for amateurs to steal modern vehicles.'
'However, the organised criminal gangs that have replaced them are well-funded and sophisticated in their approach, combining specialist electronic equipment with an international logistics network. Raising vehicle security alone will not prevent thefts. We believe that beating these criminals requires cooperation between government agencies, vehicle manufacturers and ourselves to reduce the value of stolen assets and therefore the incentive to steal them.
'Parts scarcity, vehicle desirability, natural disasters and geopolitical events is driving an illegal market in a wide variety of luxury cars, SUVs and pickups, with insurers settling claims worth £640m in 2024.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
21 minutes ago
- Times
From the archive: Speed traps and the 20mph limit
From The Times: June 25, 1925 Captain Brass and other members of Parliament had a meeting with the officials at Scotland Yard on the subject of police traps. The following agreed statement was issued last night: 'In compliance with the suggestion made by the Home Secretary to a recent deputation of members of Parliament on the question of police traps, a small committee consisting of Sir E Iliffe, Sir F Meyer, Mr Ben Smith, and Captain Brass visited Scotland Yard to discuss the efficacy of the present timing methods of the Metropolitan Police to put down dangerous driving and excessive driving speeds. The committee and the police officials were in complete accord in their desire to prosecute and punish the reckless driver.'The committee, while agreeing that the present method of timing cars acted to a certain extent as a deterrent to excessive driving speeds in certain areas, were of the opinion that this method was not really effective in preventing dangerous driving. They suggested that the police should be stationed in uniform on really dangerous cross-roads and dangerous bends and corners, where excessive speeds had been reported, pointing out that their presence would have the desirable result of preventing fast driving in these areas.'The police officials explained that, whatever may have been the intention of Parliament, a statute had been passed in the Motor Car Act which made excess of the speed limit an offence quite distinct from those of reckless, negligent, or dangerous driving. The Metropolitan Police had throughout refrained from enforcing the letter of the law, for they worked no controls in straight, open stretches free from dangers such as converging roads, nor did they work to 20 miles an hour, but allowed a substantial margin.'Members who have been following the question are particularly interested in the announcement made on behalf of the police that they allow a substantial margin beyond the 20 miles an hour limit. While members regard this as an admission that the existing limit is obsolete, they consider it as an unsatisfactory position that the margin allowed is not revealed and that the police are, therefore, working on what is practically a secret speed limit. Explore 200 years of history as it appeared in the pages of The Times, from 1785 to 1985:
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The protest group the UK government wants to brand terrorists
Palestine Action is a direct action protest group that has been targeting weapons manufacturers. This week, Yvette Cooper announced the decision to lay an order to ban them under anti-terrorism laws. This will now be debated and voted on in parliament. The Guardian's legal affairs correspondent, Haroon Siddique, explains who the group are and why the government's decision is such a surprise. 'They're the first direct protest action group to be classified in such a way,' he says. The news comes after the organisation targeted an RAF base, spray painting military aircraft, he explains to Nosheen Iqbal. 'While the action at the RAF base was very embarrassing for the government, it's far from the first time that a group has used these kinds of tactics or caused such damage.' One activist from the organisation, film-maker Saeed Teji Farooqi, explains why he became involved and why he disagrees with the government's decision. He says using terrorism legislation meant to target groups such as Islamic State on a protest group is 'ludicrous'. While at a demonstration in support of Palestine Action on Monday, protesters told Guardian reporter Geneva Abdul of their shock at the move. Yet, says Siddique, if the vote on the organisation is passed, it could also have a chilling effect on other groups. Greenpeace released a statement in which it said it was a dark day for protest in the UK.
Times
34 minutes ago
- Times
The government must push through its welfare bill at all costs
Few matters are so important that a government should risk its future to get its way. The bill to reform the welfare system is one such. Rebel Labour MPs are threatening to kill the bill in a vote next week. The government should do its utmost to stop that happening, even if it means turning the issue into a vote of confidence. Britain's economic future depends on welfare reform. Government debt is the size of the entire economy. With growth stagnant and the war in Ukraine forcing unexpected increases in the defence budget, getting a grip on public spending is essential. The most obvious candidate for cuts is welfare expenditure. Spending on sickness benefits has grown from less than £50 billion a year before the pandemic to £80 billion now. The government's bill would make it harder to access personal independence payments and would reduce the higher level of incapacity benefit. Even after those changes, the cost of sickness benefits is expected to reach £98 billion by 2030. Reasonable people might therefore conclude that the main problem with the government's plan is that it does not go far enough. However, 108 Labour MPs, including 10 select committee chairs, regard these modest economies as excessive. They have signed an amendment which would, in effect, sabotage the bill. Privately, a dozen members of the government have threatened to resign over the proposed cuts. Despite the government's large parliamentary majority, the revolt is big enough to defeat the proposed legislation. Rebels have been emboldened by the U-turn which the government performed earlier this month when it rowed back on an intended cut to pensioners' winter fuel payments. If the government caved on that, surely they can persuade it to back down on this? • Looming welfare rebellion is a battle Starmer can't afford to lose But the benefits bill is far more important than winter fuel, and not just in monetary terms. It represents the most serious attempt yet by ministers to rein in spending. If a bill as modest as this cannot get through parliament, there is no hope of getting the public finances under control. The bond market will be watching the bill's progress closely. Britain's reputation for financial management is already poor enough that the government pays 4.5 per cent on its debt, compared with Germany's 2.5 per cent and France's 3.3 per cent. Further evidence of fiscal irresponsibility could trigger another rise, which would push up interest costs further still. At £108 billion per year, the government already spends about twice as much on debt interest as it does on defence. Neither the government nor the country can afford to see the welfare reform bill fall. If Sir Keir Starmer performs another U-turn or loses the vote, his credibility, already weakened, will be destroyed. If borrowing rates rise further, Britain's finances will be further destabilised. • Welfare U-turns may jeopardise Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules An opposition that placed the country above political advantage would vote for the planned cuts. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has promised to back the bill, but only if the prime minister promises in the Commons to levy no new taxes in the autumn, and to cut the welfare budget rather than merely restrict its growth. Given this heavily-qualified offer, Sir Keir must use this week to bring his rebels to heel. To do so, he must rediscover the ruthlessness he demonstrated before the election when he purged Labour's candidates list of left-wingers, and when he suspended seven MPs for opposing his plan to keep the two-child benefit cap. He should make it clear that he is prepared to turn the vote on the benefits bill into one of confidence in his government. That is the nuclear option: if he lost, an election would be called. This bill is not just a tweak to the welfare system. The country's future is at stake. Sir Keir must make it clear to the rebels that for Labour, and for Britain, this is make or break.
