TWOC - No MOT

[Cushion]

Hi all,
I am wandering if I should be covered by fleet insurance for the following:
Someone we knew took our vehicle without asking, drove it through a river, it is now scrap.
Approx value £11-£12k.
The MOT had expired a couple of days previously but was booked in for the MOT test.
Any advice appreciated

[Dr Interceptor]

Vehicle was stolen - it should be reported as such, and the insurance should pay out regardless MOT status.

[dibblecorse]

As has been said, as long as you have reported it stolen, got the appropriate crime number etc its just a case of claiming for a stolen car, if you are trying to claim without declaring the TWOC'ing then highly unlikely the fleet policy if thats what it is under will payout for a driver thats not on the policy, you'll have to wear that one.

[Cushion]

Thanks for replies, I need to give you some more information

We reported it to the Police, because he returned it, it isn't theft/stolen.

They also said regarding TWOC offence, it is too grey for them to take on. It would be a civil matter.

We do have a crime reference number for reporting it.

[Dr Interceptor]

Cushion said:

Thanks for replies, I need to give you some more information

We reported it to the Police, because he returned it, it isn't theft/stolen.

They also said regarding TWOC offence, it is too grey for them to take on. It would be a civil matter.

We do have a crime reference number for reporting it.

That's fine then... Whilst it was out of your possession and reported as stolen it was damaged, so its an insurable loss.

No need for the insurers to know the 3rd party was known to you. For all they know, you found it a few hours later in the flood.

[rallycross]

Why is it scrap? Does it just need an engine or did it really get driven into a river and drowned?

A second hand engine may be the best answer here if its just the engine.

[Amateurish]

Cushion said:

Thanks for replies, I need to give you some more information

We reported it to the Police, because he returned it, it isn't theft/stolen.

They also said regarding TWOC offence, it is too grey for them to take on. It would be a civil matter.

We do have a crime reference number for reporting it.

If this was genuinely a theft, I would push back on this decision. If someone I knew took my car without consent, drove it through a river, then dumped it back on my drive as scrap, I would want the police to take action.

[Smurfsarepeopletoo]

I would imagine the biggest question will be how did he take it? did he have access to the keys, did an employee give them permission to drive it?

The insurance company will probably want to ask more questions, its an unusual scenario that someone would technically steal a vehicle to return it again.

[stut4]

Cushion said:

Thanks for replies, I need to give you some more information

We reported it to the Police, because he returned it, it isn't theft/stolen.

They also said regarding TWOC offence, it is too grey for them to take on. It would be a civil matter.

We do have a crime reference number for reporting it.

I'd be complaining to the police if they said it isn't theft/stolen. if it was taken without consent, regardless of it being returned, in my view its still TWOC. They have an easy conviction on their hands here - so good for their figures. If its a grey area for the police if they cannot be bothered to investigate/prosecute, i expect it'll be a grey area for the insurance company who will have to pay out thousands. Why would they pay out for TWOC and damage if they police say its not? It'll probably go around their investigate dept for a few months and then rejected. They either took the keys and vehicle without consent, or they had consent. If the former, police have to act. If the latter, cant see the insurance company paying out.

[Cushion]

He was given the keys by a contractor as he said he had permission to take it (but he didn't have permission).

He worked for us on a self employed basis so has used the vehicle for work previous to this.

It's not theft as he returned the vehicle. TWOC would be a civil matter.

The van was dumped back on the drive, just about running. Got it to the garage, they confirmed as a write off - Severe water ingress - new engine required, turbo full of water, bent conrod, low cylinder.

He has admitted taking it, said he "thought it would be okay". He said he drove through puddles only. Of course the above damage was not done by a puddle. The evidence shows this.

The fact that it had no MOT he would never have been given permission to take it.

[ZiggyNiva]

I know my recent private car policies have stated the car isn't insured (not even for theft) if they aren't road worthy. No MOT would mean it wasn't road worthy I assume.

I appreciate not all policies are the same, and no doubt someone will be along to tell me I have misunderstood my policy, but I did check with the insurance company on one of my previous policies.

[croissant]

Have you spoken to the insurance company?

[lost in espace]

ZiggyNiva said:

I know my recent private car policies have stated the car isn't insured (not even for theft) if they aren't road worthy. No MOT would mean it wasn't road worthy I assume.

I appreciate not all policies are the same, and no doubt someone will be along to tell me I have misunderstood my policy, but I did check with the insurance company on one of my previous policies.

Can be roadworthy without an MOT. You should have an MOT to drive on the road.

[Cushion]

We have reported water damage to the broker and have a claim form, we just don't know what the best route to take is.

We don't want to make a claim and then get refused. If we aren't covered maybe we should go civil route and take him to Court. Then how long will it be for us to get any money back when he says he doesn't have any!

Ziggy - Not covered even if theft

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Cushion said:

He was given the keys by a contractor as he said he had permission to take it (but he didn't have permission).

He worked for us on a self employed basis so has used the vehicle for work previous to this.

That's not theft, or ever TWOC. It's a misunderstanding. As far as he was concerned, he had consent as you'd allowed him to drive in the past. It's presumptuous, not criminal. As he's used it before, I assume he's insured to drive it, so why even muddy the waters with consent. Just make a claim, one of the insured drivers got water in the engine.

The MOT is a bit of a red herring. Shouldn't make any difference to the cover, but may result in a lower payout, as at the time of the claim, you had a vehicle without an MOT, so the market value of that vehicle would have been lower.

[The Road Crew]

croissant said:

Have you spoken to the insurance company?

Wouldn't be a bad place to start making enquiries....

[Cushion]

Twigthewonderkid- Sorry don't know how to reply individually.

I thought if we say he did have consent there's no way we would get paid because the MOT has expired

[bangerhoarder]

Aggravated vehicle taking would seem to apply. The defence that he may have believed he had the owner’s consent may be applicable too. It’s gone beyond TWOC, because the vehicle was not returned in the same condition.

It’s not theft, as the intent wasn’t to permanently deprive.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Cushion said:

Twigthewonderkid- Sorry don't know how to reply individually.

I thought if we say he did have consent there's no way we would get paid because the MOT has expired

That's no big deal. It was booked in for an MOT, and the driver took it (he's a regular user of the vehicle) not knowing it was out of MOT. An internal breakdown of communications.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

bangerhoarder said:

Aggravated vehicle taking would seem to apply. The defence that he may have believed he had the owner’s consent may be applicable too. It’s gone beyond TWOC, because the vehicle was not returned in the same condition.

It’s not theft, as the intent wasn’t permanently deprive.

I don't think any offence has occurred here at all. We have cars at work, and different drivers jump in and out of them. They don't seek new consent each time, it's not sex, it's using a vehicle.

The guy had had permission to use it before. He needed to use it, he was unaware of the MOT situation, he used it and returned it, albeit damaged. At worse he was presumptuous, which isn't an crime.