Drunk driver writes off car but we are laible for third party damage!

teabelly

Is this an issue the MIB would cover?

I'd also make sure anyone trying to claim anything from your daughter is given the name and address of the actual driver and told to claim from them as the vehicle was taken without permission. It also means that person's insurance was invalid even if they had the DOC extension.

It seems a poor state of affairs if a so called friend can take your car without permission and cause thousands in damage and you are expected to foot the bill not the friend! Writing to your MP would be another good step as it seems an area that needs clarifying when the actual perpetrator has been identified.

Quentin

MIB won't take the claim if that's what you mean

topdaddy_2

teabelly wrote: »

Is this an issue the MIB would cover?

I'd also make sure anyone trying to claim anything from your daughter is given the name and address of the actual driver and told to claim from them as the vehicle was taken without permission. It also means that person's insurance was invalid even if they had the DOC extension.

It seems a poor state of affairs if a so called friend can take your car without permission and cause thousands in damage and you are expected to foot the bill not the friend! Writing to your MP would be another good step as it seems an area that needs clarifying when the actual perpetrator has been identified.

But they have realeased the "perpetrator" of blaming by not proceeding with the twoc charge. I am surprised police didint assume the OP let the "perp" drive, which i think is an offence too.

matttye

topdaddy wrote: »

But they have realeased the "perpetrator" of blaming by not proceeding with the twoc charge. I am surprised police didint assume the OP let the "perp" drive, which i think is an offence too.

It is - permitting someone to drive your car without insurance is an offence.

forgotmyname

So is the main issue that they didnt file charges? Might be time to speak to the other person or their family.

They maybe upset about the incident. But when the owners of the cars and vans put their claims in who will pay it?

Were the vehicles parked at the time? So no injury claims just damage?

kizkiz

matttye wrote: »

Actually you're all confusing the difference between theft and TWOC.

Theft is an intended permanent deprivation (i.e. you never intended to give the property back).
TWOC is to cover a temporary deprivation (you intended to give the vehicle back).

If you intend to give something back, it's not theft!

Examples:

Theft of a motor vehicle = taking someone's keys in the course of a burglary and then driving off in their car.
TWOC = taking your mum/partner/sister/brother's keys and popping to the shop in their car without asking.

Spot on
As a police officer it surprises me how often this situation arises.
We phone the owner who is shocked to discover their car gone, but when we say, "Great, give us a statement and we'll nick the driver" they rarely want to help as "It's a mate/family member"
Whilst we could still arrest for the offence, it would go nowhere without a statement from the owner as evidence.

matttye

kizkiz wrote: »

Spot on
As a police officer it surprises me how often this situation arises.
We phone the owner who is shocked to discover their car gone, but when we say, "Great, give us a statement and we'll nick the driver" they rarely want to help as "It's a mate/family member"
Whilst we could still arrest for the offence, it would go nowhere without a statement from the owner as evidence.

Even with a statement it probably wouldn't go anywhere a lot of the time anyway.

There's no way the defence would accept such contentious evidence on a section 9 basis, so the witness would be required to attend at court to give live evidence. When the prospect of giving evidence against a family member, mate, etc., is put to them, they become less cooperative. Prosecution offer no evidence (or discontinue early), case dropped. Unless admissions were made in interview.

I'm a probationary police station rep and one of the first things I would ask my client is "Would ___ be willing to attend at court to give evidence against you?" If not, it would be a bad idea to make admissions and I'd advise no comment.

dacouch

I assume the Insurer is Admiral / Elephant or one of their companies.

Have they cancelled your daughter's policy yet, if so then she will need to declare this which can add a serious amount to her future Insurance policies. If the policy was one of the parents name and was cancelled then the parent need to take the hit and declare the cancellation

Quentin

forgotmyname wrote: »

.... when the owners of the cars and vans put their claims in who will pay it?......

See the OP

The third parties will initially have their claims dealt with by the car's insurer.

They will then train their sights on the policyholder to reimburse them.

vaio

I think the way it works is in the first instance her insurer will have to pay for all the damage to other people's cars, then......

If she didn't give permission for him to drive her insurer will also pay for the damage to her car (assuming she has theft cover) and will be able to reclaim all their costs from the driver

If she did give permission then the insurer won't pay for the damage to her car and will be able to reclaim any other costs from her and/or the driver. They will also (probably) cancel her policy which will blight her insurance life (house, car life etc etc) pretty much for ever