Vishal Patel reported a theft of £10,000 worth of belongings from his storage unit at Surgard. After discovering the break-in, he used hidden Apple AirTags to track his stolen items across London, leading him to a yellow van. He called the police, who apprehended the driver, finding Patel’s suitcase and a flick knife. Despite this, Patel was shocked to receive a letter weeks later stating the suspect was released due to “insufficient evidence.” Frustrated, he criticized the police for their inaction, questioning their competence. The investigation eventually closed without charges against the suspect.
Her father, who became a detective, helped the police catch a thief who stole her belongings, only to be released due to “insufficient evidence.”
Four suitcases, collectibles and clothing worth £10,000 were stolen from Vishal Patel’s security unit at a storage facility in Surgard.
Luckily, the 43-year-old had an Apple AirTag tracker hidden inside his case, so he was able to track their whereabouts and began a daring chase across London to retrieve them.
He eventually traced his belongings to a yellow van and called police. Officers found one of his distinctive white Samsonite cases in the back of the van and arrested the driver on charges of handling stolen property and possession of a flick knife.
Patel provided detectives with the location of other air tags, but was surprised to receive a letter three weeks later saying the suspect was being released without charge because he was “not in possession of stolen property.”
“That’s clearly not true at all, because this guy was caught with my suitcase in the van,” said the father of two. “It was unbelievable, it was literally an open goal.
“If the police aren’t doing their job, it’s because they’re lazy or just incompetent.”
Ms Patel discovered her £158-a-month storage facility in Hatch End, northwest London, had been raided on December 9 when she went to store the chairs. He said there was no evidence of forced entry.
The criminals stole around £10,000 worth of four suitcases, collectibles and clothing from Vishal Patel’s (pictured) secure unit at a storage facility in Surgard.
Mr Patel was able to track stolen goods across London using hidden air tags.
“If the police aren’t doing their job, it’s because they’re lazy or just incompetent.”
Ms Patel first became aware that her £158-a-month storage facility in Hatch End, northwest London, had been raided on December 9 when she visited the facility to store folding chairs.
He said there was no evidence of forced entry and that the padlocks on Shurgard, which the group recommends customers use, were intact, but appeared to be looser than normal.
He reported the break-in to the company and police and checked the Airtag app, which showed one driver had been driving in Paddington, west London, one in West Ham, east London and the other near the A40. did.
Some tags showed multiple trips to and from the same Shurgard storage facility, he added.
Patel then began a dramatic two-day manhunt across the city.
The corporate headhunter, from Harrow, north-west London, jumped in his car and drove to Sheldon Square in Paddington, where a tag showed his luggage was located.
“I ended up going into the underground parking lot where the tag was supposed to be, banging on someone’s window and asking if I could check his trunk for my bag,” he said.
The van where Patel tracked his belongings before calling the police.
Mr Patel tracked his goods to an address near Paddington.
Mr Patel provided detectives with the location of other air tags, but was surprised to receive a letter three weeks later saying the suspect had been released without charge.
He reported the break-in to his company and police and checked his AirTag app.
It was revealed that one vehicle was traveling in Paddington, west London, one in West Ham, east London, and one near the A40.
Some tags showed multiple trips to and from the same Shurgard storage facility, he added.
Patel then began a dramatic two-day manhunt across the city.
The corporate headhunter, from Harrow, north-west London, drove to Sheldon Square in Paddington, where a tag showed his luggage had been found.
“I ended up knocking on someone’s window and asking if I could check his boots for my bag,” he said. “He showed me, but unfortunately they weren’t there, so I was back to square one.”
The next day, the tag was located in Colindale, north-west London, so Mr Patel drove to the area, took photos of all the vehicles parked nearby, including a large yellow van, and sat in his car for two hours. Ta.
“Then the tag started moving and I saw this yellow van gone,” he said.
Mr Patel followed the car back to the road near the Shurgard closure and called police. A police car arrived just as the two men returned to the van.
Officers searched the men, believed to be Eastern European nationals, and found one in possession of £8,000 in cash and a flick knife.
Metropolitan Police Headquarters at New Scotland Yard. A Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson said: “On December 11, a 36-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of theft and possession of a knife after the victim provided information from a tracking device attached to his suitcase.” did.
“I opened the back of the van and literally right in front of my face was my signature white Samsonite case,” Patel said.
The suspect’s driver’s license indicated he lived in Sheldon Square. Ms Patel was assured that the man’s home would be immediately searched and that he would likely be charged soon.
“Two weeks later, Paddington’s air tag stopped working,” he said. “The battery should last two to three years. So this means someone found it and destroyed it.”
On January 3, Patel received a letter saying the investigation was closed because “officers arrested the suspect and determined he was not in possession of stolen property.”
“This is just a lie,” Patel said. “My stolen case was literally in the van and returned to me.
“We caught him red-handed, but they let him go. I did most of the work for them, but they still don’t work out.”
The Metropolitan Police said: “Following an investigation which included a search of the arrested man’s property under section 18, an investigation complaint was made with no further action being taken against him.” This was because there was insufficient evidence. ”
Mr. Shurgaard has been contacted for comment.