18, no licence, TWOC, severely drunk, write off

[Tyre Smoke]

Last Saturday night my lad and his mates were out on the lash and were staying at two different mates houses. They met up in town and were 'on it' from about 1800 until 0200.
During this time a couple of the group were saying they were going to take another mate's car for a drive when they got home. Thus was shut down fairly swiftly as you can imagine. But nevertheless it bubbled along as a wind up/topic on conversation throughout the evening.
End of the night, off they all go to their relevant sofas/camp beds in the two houses. My lad is woken at 0900 to hear that indeed the two idiots took the car of their friend. They helped themselves to the keys whilst he was comatose.

65 plate Golf was written off, they both ended up in hospital with (luckily) nothing more than cuts and bruises. Bloody stupid thing to do, but I was chatting with my lad about the possible outcome.

No insurance, no licence, well over the drink drive limit and taken without consent. Car is history. The lad in the passenger seat has been told he's legally in the clear apparently. But what is the driver likely to get?

It sounds to me like poor parenting skills, throw money at it and never been told 'no' entitled little idiot. Morally the parents should replace the car I guess, but also won't the owner's insurance pay out for an uninsured driver? Not that at 18 you'd want to be making a total loss claim.

So, your thoughts?

[mike74]

I don't see why the insurance wouldn't pay out as long as it's been reported and recorded as twoc?

[Electro1980]

Tyre Smoke said:

It sounds to me like poor parenting skills, throw money at it and never been told 'no' entitled little idiot. Morally the parents should replace the car I guess, but also won't the owner's insurance pay out for an uninsured driver? Not that at 18 you'd want to be making a total loss claim.

So, your thoughts?

It’s nothing to do with the parents. Firstly, lads that age do dumb things sometimes come so, no, not “poor parenting skills, stupid, drunk teenagers. Secondly they are adults so, no, there is no moral or legal obligation on the parents.

Your sons car is covered for theft, it was stolen. Simple. The insurance company will pay out as a theft claim.

[Tyre Smoke]

To be clear, my son or his car were not involved. He was several miles away at another house and only heard about it the following morning.

We were speculating what the offender is likely to receive in court.

[OutInTheShed]

Would question whether passenger should be, or is, 'in the clear'.

So long as the owner gave no permission to drive the car, it's just theft surely? As far as his insurance is concerned.

[Tyre Smoke]

Well, yes. And no. I was told theft implied that the offender intended to permanently deprive them of the article (in this case a car) and that the specific offence of Taking With Out Consent was put on the statute books to cover this.

[Chozza]

Tyre Smoke said:

The lad in the passenger seat has been told he's legally in the clear apparently.

Not sure the passenger would be in the clear - "Allowing yourself to be carried" would apply to the passenger.

[FilH]

Drink driving , theft..... 1st offence, if so likely outcome a holiday to centre parcs.


im sure that used to happen ?

[Tyre Smoke]

Chozza said:

Tyre Smoke said:

The lad in the passenger seat has been told he's legally in the clear apparently.

Not sure the passenger would be in the clear - "Allowing yourself to be carried" would apply to the passenger.

As I would have thought. But he tells my son that he's not in trouble legally.

[Ouroboros]

Who jokes abour nicking a car, definitely needs new mates.

[anonymous-user]

Tyre Smoke said:

Chozza said:

Tyre Smoke said:

The lad in the passenger seat has been told he's legally in the clear apparently.

Not sure the passenger would be in the clear - "Allowing yourself to be carried" would apply to the passenger.

As I would have thought. But he tells my son that he's not in trouble legally.

He may have a rude awakening soon.

[Tyre Smoke]

Ouroboros said:

Who jokes abour nicking a car, definitely needs new mates.

No argument there either. He's not a friend of my lad, goes to the same school and is a fringe member of my lad's social group.

[Bigends]

Could be aggravated TWOC if he injured anybody or caused damage to any other property.
If the passenger knew or believed to know the car was taken without consent then theyre also in the soup

[OutInTheShed]

Tyre Smoke said:

Well, yes. And no. I was told theft implied that the offender intended to permanently deprive them of the article (in this case a car) and that the specific offence of Taking With Out Consent was put on the statute books to cover this.

You're correct, but it's still called 'theft' in insurance contexts.

[donkmeister]

FilH said:

Drink driving , theft..... 1st offence, if so likely outcome a holiday to centre parcs.


im sure that used to happen ?

Isn't that cruel and unusual punishment? Seems harsh to send them to Center Parcs unless there were aggravating circumstances.

[Mr Miata]

Electro1980 said:

Your sons car is covered for theft, it was stolen. Simple. The insurance company will pay out as a theft claim.

It’s a myth that insurance companies are happy to make a loss. There’s often a disclaimer or small print. I’d be surprised if a known person who’s already inside your own house and who has easy access to your keys, would meet the requirements for “theft”.

From my experience most insurance companies (not just car insurance) insist that you take action to prevent theft from happening. For example, you couldn’t leave you car unlocked, with its key in the ignition and your £1500 laptop on display on top of the passenger seat and then claim theft. Or you can’t leave your house window wide open and then claim your house has been burgled. Or leave your bicycle unattended and unlocked in a public place and then claim it’s been stolen.

Edited by Mr Miata on Monday 2nd May 15:45

[Tyre Smoke]

Whilst that is true Miata, I don't think the car keys were easily accessible. As in the lad whose car it was had they keys in his jeans pocket and the offender actively rifled his pockets while he was asleep.

[HappyMidget]

Tyre Smoke said:

Well, yes. And no. I was told theft implied that the offender intended to permanently deprive them of the article (in this case a car) and that the specific offence of Taking With Out Consent was put on the statute books to cover this.

If I understand the law from when my mum did her law degree (probably not) Theft is taking with the intent to permanently deprive, whereas TWOC would cover a case of some taking a car for a joyride and returning the car after the fact.

[cjs racing.]

donkmeister said:

Isn't that cruel and unusual punishment? Seems harsh to send them to Center Parcs unless there were aggravating circumstances.

According to the mumsnet lot "going to Center Parks" implies you are going to have bum fun.

So the lad may be in for a massive shock.

[Aretnap]

Mr Miata said:

Electro1980 said:

Your sons car is covered for theft, it was stolen. Simple. The insurance company will pay out as a theft claim.

From my experience most insurance companies (not just car insurance) insist that you take action to prevent theft from happening.

They don't "insist that you take action to prevent theft". They put specific clauses in the policy saying that theft will not be covered in certain circumstances. If the circumstances aren't covered by a specific clause they can't refuse to pay out just because they think that you were a bit careless or that could have tried a bit harder to prevent the theft.

Mr Miata said:

For example, you couldn’t leave you car unlocked, with its key in the ignition and your £1500 laptop on display on top of the passenger seat and then claim theft.

Well you can claim that it was theft - because it is theft. However you couldn't usually claim for the laptop on your home insurance because most home insurance policies will have a clause to say that they won't cover theft of valuables from an unattended car, unless the valuables are out of sight in a locked boot. And car insurance policies will generally have a clause to say that they won't cover theft of the cars if it's left unattended with the keys in the vehicle.

Mr Miata said:

Or leave your bicycle unattended and unlocked in a public place and then claim it’s been stolen

Again, most home/cycle insurance policies will have a clause to say that they won't cover theft if the bike is left unattended without being locked.

Mr Miata said:

Or you can’t leave your house window wide open and then claim your house has been burgled.

You can claim for this actually - unless your home insurance has a clause to say that it won't cover theft if the house is left unoccupied without the doors and windows being locked. This is not a standard clause - most people will be covered if they forget to lock their front door when they go out one day. However it's sometimes added as an endorsement if the house if in a high burglary area, or has been burgled in the past, or contains unusually high value contents.

Mr Miata said:

I’d be surprised if a known person who’s already inside your own house and who has easy access to your keys, would meet the requirements for “theft”.

Prepare to be surprised. Most policies do have a clause about theft/twoc by a member of your family or household - which may be as mild as to say that they'll only cover if if the theft is reported to the police. (So that if your teenage son takes your car and crashes it, you can't have your cake and eat it by claiming on your insurance but also keeping him out of trouble with the police). I've never seen a clause that would exclude twoc by a random house guest - can you point to one? Without a specific clause of course, the insurer cannot refuse to pay out on the grounds that "you didn't follow the rules that we didn't tell you about".

Edited by Aretnap on Tuesday 3rd May 07:49