CAR THEFT

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:55): Recently, I was contacted by one of my constituents (who I will refer to simply as Mr A) regarding the theft of his motor vehicle from his place of business. The vehicle had been purchased from a reputable car dealership in Adelaide in November 2004. The theft occurred from Mr A's business premises. At the time, he was in a meeting with a customer (a magistrate) who inquired about the whereabouts of Mr A's vehicle, which was usually parked in the same spot outside his premises. Upon discovering that the vehicle had, in fact, gone from where it had been parked, the police were called and the business's video surveillance footage was viewed.

The police advised Mr A that, in order for the theft to have occurred as quickly as it had, a key would be required. Mr A called the car dealership to inquire whether there were any other keys that had not been provided to him at the time of the purchase; he was advised that this was not the case. The salesperson also mentioned that the only way of obtaining an additional key was with a key code. This is usually provided to locksmiths to duplicate keys when the original key is not available. I am advised that only the manufacturer of the vehicle keeps these codes.

A subsequent phone call to a different dealership that sells the same make of vehicle indicated that, in order to obtain a key code, one has to provide the vehicle identification number. At a later date, my constituent contacted a friend who owned the same make of vehicle that had been stolen and asked whether he could use the identification number of that vehicle to attempt to obtain its key code.

He asked the same magistrate who had been present when the vehicle was stolen whether he would witness his attempt to obtain a key code from the car dealership in question without providing any proof of ownership of his friend's vehicle or identification. Mr A rang the car dealership and told them that he had lost his keys and required the key code for the vehicle. The service person he spoke to requested the identification number of the vehicle. The key code was located and provided to Mr A without any request for further proof of ownership or identification. Mr A, accompanied by the magistrate, went to the local locksmith and obtained the key with the key code provided by the service person.

I have chosen not to name the car manufacturer or vehicle involved in this matter because subsequent advice received indicates that such information has the potential to lead to an increase in thefts of the vehicles in question. However, I met with the Executive Director of the Motor Trade Association, Mr John Chapman, who advised that the MTA will alert its members to the situation through its newsletter.

I might also mention that Mr A spent up to $28,000 in legal fees in a claim against the car manufacturer, who denied all responsibility. Unfortunately, when Mr A was advised that the manufacturer would defend the matter vigorously because its reputation was at stake, Mr A realised that he could not afford to continue with the action and withdrew his claim. At the time of the incident, there was no requirement for a 100-point check of identification and anyone could obtain the identification number of a vehicle and its key code, especially as that number is printed on vehicle registration labels.