I attended armed with the outcome of my freedom of information request which confirmed the police were not recording the costs of crime. I said that asking for, and recording the costs of damage was crucial. I said it was an important and obvious part of what the police ought to do following cases of criminal damage. I noted other forces mange to do it an said this was an example of how we in Cambridgeshire are getting a poor quality of service from the police.

I explained I felt it was important both so reports on levels or crime could be interpreted and more importantly so the courts are in possession of all the facts saying I was concerned that if they were not then punishments and sentences might not be appropriate and those who had suffered losses would not get compensation.

Sgt. Wragg said that criminal damage was something which “had been taken on by the council”, he suggested it was not a police matter.

Inspector Kerridge cited damage to vehicles as an example of the very lowest level of crime, clearly implying it the matter not, in his view, very important. To some extent I agree, but I think we need a basic level of quality in policing even when it comes to more minor crime.

The Liberal Democrat councillors all sat in silence and made no comment. They don’t like to use their ability to influence the police.

Labour’s Cllr Mike Todd-Jones though took up the matter of criminal damage with a passion; noting damage to vehicles is a problem, both in Arbury and recently in neighboring Castle ward. He suggested prioritising tackling the problem, but he was on his own so I don’t believe this got taken up (There was no clear vote taken).

While the police had reported very low burglary levels to the North Area committee, and had been commended for them by me and by councillors, a couple of days later it was revealed that burglars in the area have been stealing tens of thousands of pounds worth of gold and jewelery from homes. Recording the costs of crime, and including them in the report, would have flagged this up and the police burglary figures would have looked less impressive. That the area’s burglars are improving their efficiency and are becoming better at picking their targets might be good for the police’s crime figures but it is not a sign the police are effectively tackling the problem.

I wouldn’t want to see the police estimating when accurate information is available - sometimes that does happen at the moment - and is one reason I want to find out more about what they do.

I am not proposing an increase in paperwork; just using the systems which are already in place; and perhaps tweaking the system so that those whose property is damaged can more easily inform the police (and through them the courts) of costs they have incurred.

Insurance companies don’t pay claims of this nature without a police incident number, so that would seem to be a perfect link to connect the two databases.

And, of course, only the insurance company will know the true cost of the claim when taking into account things such as loss of No Claims bonus, increased premiums, postcode risk allocation, etc.

It would be in the interests of the insurance companies to log this with the police as maybe a large cost could be an incentive to prioritise the crime.

If the police fill these forms out at the time then it is only guesswork of the cost.