Crash, car taken without permission, no insurance/licence

[hman]

12 months of interviews, court appearances and constant dirty looks from his partner whom he Twoc'd the car from.

Then whatever points, licence suspension, fines, injury claims etc. and dirty looks from his partner for about another 2 years

[martinbiz]

I think I’d be more concerned at the potential for an enforced holiday courtesy of her majesty than I would be about dirty looks from my ex

[PH_77]

martinbiz said:

I think I’d be more concerned at the potential for enforced holiday courtesy of her majesty than I would be about dirty looks from my ex

It was only a concussion though. Nothing majorly serious....

[Om]

eldar said:

martinbiz said:

He crashed the car and injured the passengers, those 2 offences posted above could pale into insignificance compared to what he may ultimately end up being charged with

Plus, of course, the civil element, whiplash, etc. Might end up being chased for those.

Putting aside the points/charges, if the insurance is valid and his partners insurance company pick up the bill then surely they will be looking to recoup their costs from the driver - car, street furniture, recovery, injuries to passengers (even if not severe) could see him hit with a bill well into six figures.

[Roman Moroni]

Om said:

eldar said:

martinbiz said:

He crashed the car and injured the passengers, those 2 offences posted above could pale into insignificance compared to what he may ultimately end up being charged with

Plus, of course, the civil element, whiplash, etc. Might end up being chased for those.

Putting aside the points/charges, if the insurance is valid and his partners insurance company pick up the bill then surely they will be looking to recoup their costs from the driver - car, street furniture, recovery, injuries to passengers (even if not severe) could see him hit with a bill well into six figures.

The passengers may have a few problems of their own.

If they knew the car had been taken without the owners permission, then there's the small matter of Allowing to be Carried

[ArchEnemy]

Thank you for all of the replies. I suppose he’s just going to have to wait and see what the police say/charge him with, as well as what the insurers view is - if they pursue him for any damages, and the passengers too.

The passengers would have known the situation (lack of insurance/licence etc) but can easily deny it.

[martinbiz]

PH_77 said:

martinbiz said:

I think I’d be more concerned at the potential for enforced holiday courtesy of her majesty than I would be about dirty looks from my ex

It was only a concussion though. Nothing majorly serious....

Not sure of your point, dangerous driving alone is an either way offence and can still carry a custodial sentence depending on circumstances, racing, showing off etc, up to 6 months even if tried at a magistrates court

[mac96]

ArchEnemy said:

Hi, asking the below on behalf of a relative (no, really).

.......

Can anyone advise what may happen next, there could be mitigating circumstances relating to mental health (tablets etc), but I’m not sure. The police didn’t say too much as far as I know but I assume they’ll be paying a visit to them soon?

Would being 'on tablets' be any sort of mitigation, or just lead to additional charge of driving under the influence of drugs?

[martinbiz]

mac96 said:

ArchEnemy said:

Hi, asking the below on behalf of a relative (no, really).

.......

Can anyone advise what may happen next, there could be mitigating circumstances relating to mental health (tablets etc), but I’m not sure. The police didn’t say too much as far as I know but I assume they’ll be paying a visit to them soon?

Would being 'on tablets' be any sort of mitigation, or just lead to additional charge of driving under the influence of drugs?

yes, admitting to driving while taking drugs, prescribed or otherwise, that may impair ability to drive would probably not be his best move. Of course, if asked one would be obliged to answer truthfully

[wrong_turn]

ArchEnemy said:

Thank you for all of the replies. I suppose he’s just going to have to wait and see what the police say/charge him with, as well as what the insurers view is - if they pursue him for any damages, and the passengers too.

The passengers would have known the situation (lack of insurance/licence etc) but can easily deny it.

I'd like to echo the poster above who said don't speak to the police without first getting legal advice.

I did, and was well and truly stitched up because I answered their questions honestly. When I saw their evidence before the court case, the police officers own statement was full of errors (possibly lies) but also the witness statement was completely nonsensical.

The burden would have been on me to disprove them which would have got very expensive and stressful so I just rolled over.

[4rephill]

Countdown said:

ArchEnemy said:

To keep the insurance valid, his partner has said he took the car without permission, which is true.

That was fortunate.

In this situation, there are one of three possibilities:

1) The owner confirms that the vehicle was taken without consent, and so the insurance is valid, and only their partner has broken the Law.

2) The owner admits that they allowed the vehicle to be taken by their partner, so the insurance is invalid (with the exception of third party claims - Which the insurance company can claim back form the owner), and both the owner and partner have broken the Law.

3) The owner lies about the vehicle being taken without consent, which at the time, keeps the insurance valid, but runs the risk that, if it's later found out that the owner lied and allowed their partner to take the vehicle, the insurance is declared void ((with the exception of third party claims - Which the insurance company can claim back form the owner), the owner could be charged with insurance fraud, Perverting the Course of Justice and allowing a vehicle to be used illegally, along with their partner being charged with various offences, and the owner faces years of trouble getting insurance again (along with a massive hike in premiums)

If you were in this situation - Which option would you go with?

[Ian Geary]

4rephill said:

In this situation, there are one of three possibilities:

1) The owner confirms that the vehicle was taken without consent, and so the insurance is valid, and only their partner has broken the Law.

2) The owner admits that they allowed the vehicle to be taken by their partner, so the insurance is invalid (with the exception of third party claims - Which the insurance company can claim back form the owner), and both the owner and partner have broken the Law.

3) The owner lies about the vehicle being taken without consent, which at the time, keeps the insurance valid, but runs the risk that, if it's later found out that the owner lied and allowed their partner to take the vehicle, the insurance is declared void ((with the exception of third party claims - Which the insurance company can claim back form the owner), the owner could be charged with insurance fraud, Perverting the Course of Justice and allowing a vehicle to be used illegally, along with their partner being charged with various offences, and the owner faces years of trouble getting insurance again (along with a massive hike in premiums)

If you were in this situation - Which option would you go with?

Sounds like option one, which - fortunately - is true as well.

Barring repeated acts of stupidity by either party, I can't see how the insurance company could ever prove otherwise.

The problem will come if they break up, and the partner suddenly has a different recollection (and evidence to prove it).

[timbob]

normalbloke said:

It’s TWOC, simple.

It’ll be aggravated twoc due to the damage to the vehicle and injury to the passengers at least (before any dangerous driving is considered) and a possible crown court appearance.

[mikebradford]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Hopefully not their kids

[martinbiz]

mikebradford said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Hopefully not their kids

Keep up the OP has already said they were adults

[martinbiz]

timbob said:

It’ll be aggravated twoc due to the damage to the vehicle and injury to the passengers at least (before any dangerous driving is considered) and a possible crown court appearance.

If the info given so far is truthfull, I would think it most likely to be tried at a Magistrates court

[matchmaker]

timbob said:

normalbloke said:

It’s TWOC, simple.

It’ll be aggravated twoc due to the damage to the vehicle and injury to the passengers at least (before any dangerous driving is considered) and a possible crown court appearance.

I understand there is an offence of Aggravated Vehicle Taking - would this apply here? (It's not an offence I know anything about, as it's England and Wales law and I worked in the Scottish Courts.)

[Countdown]

4rephill said:

Countdown said:

ArchEnemy said:

To keep the insurance valid, his partner has said he took the car without permission, which is true.

That was fortunate.

In this situation, there are one of three possibilities:

1) The owner confirms that the vehicle was taken without consent, and so the insurance is valid, and only their partner has broken the Law.

2) The owner admits that they allowed the vehicle to be taken by their partner, so the insurance is invalid (with the exception of third party claims - Which the insurance company can claim back form the owner), and both the owner and partner have broken the Law.

3) The owner lies about the vehicle being taken without consent, which at the time, keeps the insurance valid, but runs the risk that, if it's later found out that the owner lied and allowed their partner to take the vehicle, the insurance is declared void ((with the exception of third party claims - Which the insurance company can claim back form the owner), the owner could be charged with insurance fraud, Perverting the Course of Justice and allowing a vehicle to be used illegally, along with their partner being charged with various offences, and the owner faces years of trouble getting insurance again (along with a massive hike in premiums)

If you were in this situation - Which option would you go with?

The way it's worded in the OP implies that his partner said he took it without permission in order to keep the insurance valid and then the "because it's true" is added almost in hindsight. It seems to be an odd way to phrase things IMO.

To put it another way, if Option 1 was true why would it need to be mentioned?

[martinbiz]

4rephill said:

In this situation, there are one of three possibilities:

1) The owner confirms that the vehicle was taken without consent, and so the insurance is valid, and only their partner has broken the Law.

2) The owner admits that they allowed the vehicle to be taken by their partner, so the insurance is invalid (with the exception of third party claims - Which the insurance company can claim back form the owner), and both the owner and partner have broken the Law.

3) The owner lies about the vehicle being taken without consent, which at the time, keeps the insurance valid, but runs the risk that, if it's later found out that the owner lied and allowed their partner to take the vehicle, the insurance is declared void ((with the exception of third party claims - Which the insurance company can claim back form the owner), the owner could be charged with insurance fraud, Perverting the Course of Justice and allowing a vehicle to be used illegally, along with their partner being charged with various offences, and the owner faces years of trouble getting insurance again (along with a massive hike in premiums)

If you were in this situation - Which option would you go with?

The truthful one, anything else rarely ends well

[sociopath]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Bit of under-the-wire mini cabbing?