Analysis: Arson: A burning issue

This summer’s heatwave created a warm glow, but the rise in arson attacks will leave many feeling cold. July and August alone witnessed arson at a residential tower block in Birmingham, a block of flats in Wandsworth, a £2m damage attack on three targets in Gloucester, including the historic Fleece Hotel, and a Manchester mosque gutted by fire in the third arson attack in three years.

Critics have spoken for years about the difficulties of interesting police forces in investigating suspected arson, and figures published this year by the Ministry of Justice will add fuel to that fire. They reveal “large falls” in the number of people prosecuted for criminal damage and arson: down 10% to 3100 defendants prosecuted in 2016, which continue “the large falls seen in 2015”. So it is steadily getting worse, and the Ministry of Justice’s unhelpful lumping together of the two crimes makes smoking out specific arson conviction rates tricky.

Differing definitions

More heat than light is generated by the fact that the police and fire services collate data on a different basis, defining arson differently. This is the fault of legislators, not the emergency services themselves, but the end result is that only a proportion of deliberate fires attended by fire brigades are classified by the police as arson offences, as defined by the Criminal Damage Act 1971; and most don’t even go to trial. A BBC analysis of 18 million crimes over a five-year period, across 43 police forces in England and Wales, revealed that a massive two-thirds of criminal damage and arson cases were closed unsolved.

Although detecting criminality is a matter for the police, Mark Pierce, director of major complex loss at the Davies Group, says that investigations are now done more frequently by insurers and forensics than the police and the fire service. “Things that used to be done are not done in borderline cases. It is the job of the police to investigate but they are more geared to resourcing loss of life or injury to person arsons, but not property damage. It has to come from government to provide the police with resources because if police and fire service budgets are not enough, they have to prioritise.”

The frustration for investigators must be huge. Paul Burke, head of the special investigation unit at Questgates, observes: “Often the fire brigade, and then forensics, will comment that the fire was certainly caused by intentional or malicious ignition, but refer to the cause as ‘undetermined’.” He wonders whether a drop in convictions for arson might have changed the priority to investigate, adding: “There is certainly evidence that the police and fire brigade are often failing to even log some fires as crimes. With insurance in place, do the police and fire brigade have the appropriate appetite or resources to fully investigate these claims?”

A damp squib

Even when the suspected arson referral comes from a representative of the policyholder, it can end as a damp squib. Angus Tucker, managing director of Lorega Solutions, says: “We have seen an increase in malicious arson by former employees. CCTV picks people up and some have been identified and interviewed, but in only a small number of cases has there been a prosecution. In some cases, the police have interviewed a suspect, who then disappears while awaiting prosecution.” He adds: “We get frustrated by the few insurers that use fraudulent arson as an excuse to put a policyholder through the wringer. It can be a convenient peg to hang it on.”

Even identifying the types of premises typically torched has been made more difficult by reduced information in fire service figures on deliberate fires. James Lygate, principal investigator at IFIC Forensics, explains: “The statistics now give a bare number, whereas before they were divided into venues for fires in commercial premises, such as restaurants, where around 50% were often deliberate.” He says most fraudulent arson in commercial buildings is started outside in plastic recycling bins stored against walls, either by the owners themselves or by paying a ‘yob’ to start the fire. “Such a fire will extend to the eves of a single storey property and spread to the roof. I can’t remember when I last saw a fire set inside a restaurant using an accelerant. There is no need to do it now. The thing that dissuades arsonists is CCTV, and insurers could make it a prerequisite of commercial cover.” However, Burke observes that an insured can often detach themselves from the arson “as CCTV often puts them in a different location at the time of ignition, almost legitimising the incident.”

Tim Richardson, executive adjuster with McLarens, reports numerous claims relating to tenanted properties, from supermarkets to hotels. The landlords, tenants and subtenants – each with their own access, reasons to be in the building and potential motives – can increase the likelihood of arson and make apportioning responsibility more difficult. Malice and revenge are other triggers, Richardson explains: “Properties taken into receivership often suffer serious deliberate damage, with the culprit often suspected to be the previous owner, who has defaulted on mortgage payments and might react out of malice when the home is repossessed, attempting to prevent its resale.”

The state of a business’ finances can provide clues to possible motivation. “The economic drivers for fraudulent arson are often linked to whether the owner can afford the low rates of interest,” says Lygate, “and the banks will keep a business going if the loan is being serviced.” Fraud needs motive and opportunity, notes Bobby Gracey, CEO of Molmax Solutions, and if the business is struggling financially, a business interruption policy could tempt the owner to commit arson, as a way of regenerating it.

Fire and brimstone is the idiomatic description of eternal damnation in Hell, but here on Earth places of worship can find themselves targets for arsonists. Martyn Turner, faith director for Ecclesiastical Insurance, says arson continues to be the most common cause of large fire loss for places of worship across the UK: “Although it remains a rare event, it can be a devastating crime, both in terms of the physical loss of the building and the emotional impact [on] the local community.”

Chris Chapman, a director at WRS Insurance Brokers, can recall only one arson attack on a church, in his 30 years’ experience of dealing with faith groups. “The main frequency of claims and losses is theft and malicious damage, and water damage by cost. Insurers will look to increase excess or premium and the risks they are more concerned with are the unoccupied church properties.”

As to mosques, Nazan Hussain, a senior broker at Simply Mosque, comments that arson is no different to any other property risk. It can be difficult to place the risk, so the market attracts new entrants. But the brokerage only uses the composite market, because Lloyd’s policies tend to have more endorsements. He says it is a case of assuring the client trustees that the insurer is reputable, and reassuring insurers that there is someone around, which there tends to be because mosques are in the centre of their communities and have active volunteers. CCTV is also in use, which insurers want, he adds.

Motivated messages

Different motives for arson can come into play when it comes to places of worship, as Turner explains: “Religious buildings, whether in isolated rural or inner city locations can be seen as soft targets and could also be potential targets for those who are intent on sending political or religious motivated messages. However, arson is also often used to cover the tracks of petty thieves. In our experience, most cases of arson are opportunistic rather than planned – fuel and heat sources that are easy to access can be used by thieves and others who are up to no good to start fires.”

The frustration about lack of support from public authorities doesn’t translate into a consensus about what needs to be done. Gracey says insurers need to be more strategic and prepare cases that are fit for court. They should be using people with police backgrounds to take statements to court standards, instead of letting forensic scientists do it, when they have not been trained for it, he argues. “The model for 100 years has been to use scientists. There is also a need for data collaboration between investigators and the scientists to get cause and origin.” He adds: “Insurers acted on the motor side, with the Insurance Fraud Bureau focusing on car crashes and the most logical next step would be arson.”

So could the IFB take fraudulent arson on? Its remit is to investigate organised fraud, explains its director Ben Fletcher. He adds the IFB’s move to property fraud forms part of its five-year strategy to go beyond motor. “Arson is a serious and dangerous offence and, like most frauds, will undoubtedly have an organised aspect to it,” he notes. “The IFB and police enforcement will continue to work together to stamp out organised fraud and organised cases of arson fraud will be included in that.”

As fires getting out of control pose a threat to life, the importance of deterrence cannot be overstated. Any reluctance, perceived or otherwise, by police to investigate or the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute arsonists could impact adversely on the public’s safety and feelings of security.

Some fire services have a good record in this regard, including Hampshire’s Arson Task Force, whose fire investigation team has just notched up the 200th conviction in its 10-year history. During that time, it has investigated more than 2000 blazes and determined that more than 1300 were deliberate. It has a 70% conviction rate for the cases where suspects were charged. Station manager Damian Watts says having dedicated fire investigation officers means skills and specialities are not diluted: “We are also lucky to have established a great relationship with Hampshire Constabulary and we have a police officer who works from the same office as us.”

The Policing and Crime Act 2017 places a statutory obligation on emergency services to collaborate. It also enables local police and crime commissioners to take on responsibilities for fire and rescue services in their area, where a case can be made on the grounds of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, or public safety. Could this piece of legislation light the touch paper for altering the current fragmented way of dealing with suspected arson?

“While not specifically directed at arson, this would nonetheless be a game-changer,” comments Nick Young, a partner at DAC Beachcroft. “If the snap election results have halted its implementation, politically, the insurance industry should take ownership of the arson issue, as it did with fraud. The commercial cost to insurers is huge, but there is not much collective commitment. Perhaps they don’t engage as the target of fraud is personal lines, whereas very expensive fire claims are in the commercial sector.”