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

matttye

KatieDee wrote: »

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.

By the way, if the police thought that she'd permitted her friend to drive the car they would've interviewed her for permitting someone to drive with no insurance. Doesn't seem like that that is the case, so the police, presumably in receipt of more information than us, haven't concluded that she allowed him to drive.

specialboy wrote: »

And you actually believe that is the case?

Details are way too scarce for me to make any sort of conclusion.

Who knows if this was in a party setting, or if she just had a drunk friend that took her car keys in the middle of the night whilst she was asleep?

harveybobbles

Quentin wrote: »

The use of "DCA " is irrelevant to this thread (the poster you have read using it mentions it in every post he writes irrespective of its relevance).

It's my signature lol.

arcon5

Not much sympathy here... at the point op was threatened with court action, and at the latest when court papers was received then legal advice should have been sought to determine the consequences and possibilities. She didn't and is now paying the price.

Being nice would have been not pursuing the person for damages to your own vehicle, not, not pressing charges! And there is a difference between being nice and being a pushover.

Still not too late to seek proper legal advice..... maybe see if either

its not too late to give a police statement and make the insurer liable

or

even if it's possible to pursue the person for reimbursement

Has the daughter even contacted the person or their parents yet to seek a contribution.

thenudeone

Pops123 wrote: »

Thanks yes Police obviously involved anyway she made a full statement. Apparently theft is not theft if you know the person who took your keys its a Take Without Consent (TWOC) and most young peoples insurance does not cover them for this which is why I thought people should know!

Rubbish on so many counts.

Theft is always theft if the person intended to permanently deprive the owner of it, regardless of whether they know the owner, have the keys or whatever. But proving someone's intention isn't always easy. All the "thief" has to say is: "I was intending to use it for a bit then leave it somewhere it could be found and returned to the owner" and theft becomes difficult to prove.
To prevent people using this excuse, separate offences were created for taking a (motor) vehicle without the owner's consent (TWOC), and a similar offence exists for pedal cycles too.

I'd be surprised if any policy covering theft didn't also automatically cover TWOC, although there may well be exclusions (for theft and TWOC) where they keys were left with the vehicle or if it was taken by someone in the owners' family or household.

Which insurance company was involved? I'm sure we'd like to view the policy ourselves to see what's excluded.

matttye

thenudeone wrote: »

All the "thief" has to say is: "I was intending to use it for a bit then leave it somewhere it could be found and returned to the owner" and theft becomes difficult to prove.

This is why I gave the burglary example in an earlier post.

If it was a stranger that took the vehicle, then any assertion that they were planning on giving it back is less likely to persuade a bench or jury.

Whereas if it's somebody the owner knows, especially a friend, the likelihood of them 'borrowing' it becomes that much more likely.

Strider590

It's slightly off subject, but did she pat for and as such own this car?

I ask because a "friend" would have to prise the keys from my cold dead fingers before i'd let them take my motor........

Nodding_Donkey

Pops123 wrote: »

Everyone should know this! My daughters car was taken without her permission by a drunk 'friend' and written off. He wrote off a company van and damaged 3 other cars in the process thank god no one was hurt. He gets £250 fine a drunk driver awareness course and a 15 month ban.....we get a letter from the insurance saying she is liable for 'any third party claims for which they are not liable'!! Potentially thousands which she hasn't got ok they take her to court and she pays £10 a month but her credit rating will be slashed she's only 21 how is this fair?? We were nice we didn't charge with theft because the family who were mortified offered to pay for her car he would have been thrown out of university and as we read the small print and realised we would not be insured for her car anyway as its a take without consent this seemed like the best way forward. Moral of story It doesn't pay to be nice...tell your sons and daughter LOCK your car keys away!

If his family have offered (and have the means) what's the problem?

arcon5

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

If his family have offered (and have the means) what's the problem?

Offered to pay for her car. I suspect they expected the insurer to cover third party claims

maninthestreet

So how did this drunk 'friend' get hold of the car keys in the first place??

InsideInsurance

This all revolves round if she gave permission for them to take the vehicle or not.

By not pressing for charges against the driver for taking the vehicle, for simplicities and shorter words we will call it theft even if it may be TWOC or not etc, then it is assumed she gave permission. As such we assume the driver is named on her policy and so is an uninsured driver however her insurers are the RTA insurers of the vehicle and so are required to handle claims against the vehicle in most of these circumstances.

Under both common law and normally written into the wording of the policy the insurer has the right to recover their outlay from the insured when their actions result in the insurer having to act as the RTA insurers. An uninsured driver also wont have cover for own vehicle damage.


If she had pressed for charges then it'd be a theft claim and her own damages would be covered. As to the third parties, back in my claims days it would depend on if the thief was identified or not, and I cannot remember which way round it was. In one case the insurer has to deal with it as the RTA insurer and in the other they don't. If they do have to pay out then there is no right of recover against the insured as they've done nothing wrong. In both cases the insurers have the right of recover from the theif

The problem now of cause is that they know you didnt press charges and so if you changed your mind then there will be concerns you are lying to cover your !!!!!! for the monies and so they may wait until the court case.