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

Johno100

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.

But surely the threat of a prosecution for permitting the 'perp' to drive without insurance would in most cases get the required co-operation from the owner, wouldn't it? Either they drove with the owners permission (and most probably no insurance) or it was TWOK.

matttye

Johno100 wrote: »

But surely the threat of a prosecution for permitting the 'perp' to drive without insurance would in most cases get the required co-operation from the owner, wouldn't it? Either they drove with the owners permission (and most probably no insurance) or it was TWOK.

Someone can report an incident but then refuse to give a statement, or give a statement but refuse to give live evidence.

Even if you summons someone to court to give evidence, you can get them in the witness box but you can't make them speak.

If a witness becomes uncooperative then the prosecution is unlikely to call them anyway.

Not supporting a prosecution does not mean that they permitted the owner to drive without insurance.

Aretnap

If the car was genuinely TWOCced then in theory she should not be I able for the third party damages. However there's likely to be a clause in the policy to the effect that in the event of TWOC it has to be reported to the police as such, and she has to cooperate fully with the police investigation, even (nay, especially) if the TWOCcer was a friend or family member. Otherwise there's inevitably going to be a suspicion that she did indeed let him drive it, and only decided that he didn't have permission when things went belly up.

artbaron

Judge Judy wouldn't believe this guy drove without permission and I don't either. That's why you didn't press charges and that's why the insurance is not sypmathetic. People don't steal (TWOC) their friends' cars, they're given permission and when they crash it's "let's make up a story" time.

londonTiger

big mistake, should have charged the drunk driver for theft to mitigate your responsbility. I don't think you have understood the gravity of the drunk drivers crime. He could have killed someone on the road - lucky he did not. he needs to be punished to the full extent of the law - you decided to let him off and not charge for theft and now the insurers are going to come after you because either the vehicle was taken without consent (theft) or you have given them permission to drive it which makes you fully culpable.

Next time get a solicitor to advise you because being "nice" has cost you dearly.

Everyone's gut reaction is likely correct though, most likely your daughter was drunk as well and decided to let the "friend" drive it who was possibly less drunk than your daughter which caused the accident.

matttye

londonTiger wrote: »

big mistake, should have charged the drunk driver for theft to mitigate your responsbility. I don't think you have understood the gravity of the drunk drivers crime. He could have killed someone on the road - lucky he did not. he needs to be punished to the full extent of the law - you decided to let him off and not charge for theft and now the insurers are going to come after you because either the vehicle was taken without consent (theft) or you have given them permission to drive it which makes you fully culpable.

Next time get a solicitor to advise you because being "nice" has cost you dearly.

Everyone's gut reaction is likely correct though, most likely your daughter was drunk as well and decided to let the "friend" drive it who was possibly less drunk than your daughter which caused the accident.

TWOC is not theft, for reasons I explained earlier.

KatieDee

I suppose both this friend and your daughter should be grateful that nobody was killed or severely injured during this accident...I can only imagine the implications of this.

It is frustrating that your daughter is liable for the full cost of repair but ultimately, it is her who is responsible for allowing her friend to drive the car. I keep my keys with me at all times (even in the house, as I'm a bit paranoid) and if somebody did take my car (even a friend) I would be on the phone to the police straight away. As others have mentioned, she would have been much better off reporting the theft to the police. Yes, she would have lost a friend, but I'd rather lose a (bad) friend than thousands of pounds over a number of years while I paid it back!

I truly hope it works out for your daughter and her friend gets what he deserves. It irks me that he probably won't learn from this mistake!

matttye

KatieDee wrote: »

It is frustrating that your daughter is liable for the full cost of repair but ultimately, it is her who is responsible for allowing her friend to drive the car.

This whole thread is about her friend driving her car without her permission, not with it.

KatieDee

matttye wrote: »

This whole thread is about her friend driving her car without her permission, not with it.

But it's unclear how this happened. Did he break into her property, take the keys and then the car? Was she in the car at the time of the accident? Did he take it from this girls home or did he drive it from a place they both drove to when everybody was sober?

There's too little information. Perhaps my post was a little presumptuous with that in mind.

specialboy

matttye wrote: »

This whole thread is about her friend driving her car without her permission, not with it.

And you actually believe that is the case?