FOI 767/24 Parcel Theft
Dear Sir/Madam
Enquiry Reference: 767 - 24
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
Q1 How many instances of parcel theft (i.e. parcels stolen from somebody’s doorstep, or other cases where thieves steal a package, for example by impersonating a delivery person or homeowner) were reported between the following dates? (NOTE: If the request will be too time-consuming, please share the most recent cases first)
- 01/08/2023 – 31/07/2024
Q2 If possible, can you share the number of reported instances of parcel theft (i.e. parcels stolen from somebody’s doorstep, or other cases where thieves steal a package, for example by impersonating a delivery person or homeowner) by month for each of the date ranges provided in question one or, if this is not possible, any data that would make it possible to calculate this?
Q3 If possible, can you share either the total reported value of stolen parcels for the date ranges provided in question one or, if this is not possible, any data that would make it possible to calculate this?
Q4 If possible, can you share the most common time of day when parcels were stolen (using the date ranges provided in question one) in the following format, or, if not possible, any data that would make it possible to calculate this?
- A - 09.01 – 17.00
- B - 17.01 – 22.00
- C - 22.01 – 09.00
Q5 If possible, can you share the most common age of the people reporting theft (for the date ranges provided in question one) in the following format, or any data that would make it possible to calculate this?
- A - 21 and under
- B - 22-34
- C - 35-44
- D - 45-54
- E - 55-64
- F - 65 and over
Q6 If possible, can you estimate how long (hours per month) in total that your employees spent on any work relating to reported theft of parcels?
Q7 If possible, can you share the number of reports you received split by type of dwelling/address where the reported incident took place?
-Detatched house or bungalow
-Semi-detatched or terraced house
-Apartment/flat
-Office/business
-Any other
In relation to this request, we can only provide is crimes that recorded under the Home office code 42 which is Theft of mail. This however does not just contain packages, it will also include letters and anything that can be send via the mail (or any parcel delivery service). How it was stolen cannot be determined.
We cannot answer Q3 and Q6.
Q1 How many instances of parcel theft (i.e. parcels stolen from somebody’s doorstep, or other cases where thieves steal a package, for example by impersonating a delivery person or homeowner) were reported between the following dates? (NOTE: If the request will be too time-consuming, please share the most recent cases first)
- 01/08/2023 – 31/07/2024
Q2 If possible, can you share the number of reported instances of parcel theft (i.e. parcels stolen from somebody’s doorstep, or other cases where thieves steal a package, for example by impersonating a delivery person or homeowner) by month for each of the date ranges provided in question one or, if this is not possible, any data that would make it possible to calculate this?
|
Aug-23 |
Sep-23 |
Oct-23 |
Nov-23 |
Dec-23 |
Jan-24 |
Feb-24 |
Mar-24 |
Apr-24 |
May-24 |
Jun-24 |
Total |
|
|
Theft of Mail (HO code 42) offences reported |
2 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
50 |
Q3 If possible, can you share either the total reported value of stolen parcels for the date ranges provided in question one or, if this is not possible, any data that would make it possible to calculate this?
- Values are not recorded consistently
Q4 If possible, can you share the most common time of day when parcels were stolen (using the date ranges provided in question one) in the following format, or, if not possible, any data that would make it possible to calculate this?
- A - 09.01 – 17.00 - 39 offences were recorded with an earliest committed time within these hours.
- B - 17.01 – 22.00 -6
- C - 22.01 – 09.00 -5
Q5 If possible, can you share the most common age of the people reporting theft (for the date ranges provided in question one) in the following format, or any data that would make it possible to calculate this?
- A - 21 and under
- B - 22-34
- C - 35-44
- D - 45-54
- E - 55-64
- F - 65 and over
|
Age of reporting person or victim |
Number of offences |
|
21 and under |
3 |
|
22-34 |
23 |
|
45-54 |
16 |
|
55-64 |
5 |
|
65 and over |
2 |
|
Unknown |
1 |
Q6 If possible, can you estimate how long (hours per month) in total that your employees spent on any work relating to reported theft of parcels?
- No information held/ Not recorded.
Q7 If possible, can you share the number of reports you received split by type of dwelling/address where the reported incident took place?
-Detatched house or bungalow
-Semi-detatched or terraced house
-Apartment/flat
-Office/business
-Any other
This data is taken from the MO location description
|
|
Number of offences |
|
House (type not specified) |
13 |
|
Semi/Terrace |
5 |
|
Flat |
5 |
|
Public/open place |
16 |
|
Shop/business |
5 |
|
Not recorded |
6 |
Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.
The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.
If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request, you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The Freedom of Information Code of Practice (see below link) states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced. Public authorities are not obliged to accept internal reviews after this date.
Information Rights Decision Maker