Caught driving without insurance

bestpud

Al_Mac wrote: »

Unless the police have redefined the word theft, it can't be.

I'd suggest you let your friends and the police know, he had your permission.

Is he "known" to the police, are they after him?

That was my other thought - has he been charged with other offences at the same time or is he known for car theft?

Also, what has he told the police?

LandyAndy

I always thought theft involved an 'intent to permanently deprive'. As he only had it to fix and was then, presumably, going to give it back I don't see how theft comes into it.


Edit


Thought so - See http://www.rizer.co.uk/access/default.asp?pg=info&art=The%20Law&id=718

claire23

bestpud wrote: »

That was my other thought - has he been charged with other offences at the same time or is he known for car theft?

Also, what has he told the police?

I have no idea what hes told the police as hes been in the cells since last nite. He has been charged with other offences too, and yes he has a past for car theft.

Claire

Wig

LandyAndy wrote: »

I always thought theft involved an 'intent to permanently deprive'. As he only had it to fix and was then, presumably, going to give it back I don't see how theft comes into it.


Edit


Thought so - See http://www.rizer.co.uk/access/default.asp?pg=info&art=The%20Law&id=718

You're right (though I'm no lawyer) it would not be theft but "taking a vehicle without permission"

TBeckett100

i saw someone have their car seized and removed by the police because the 2 chavs had no insurance.

bestpud

ts_aly2000 wrote: »

The Police are being awkward, simply so that they can achieve their quota and an entry into their monthly prize draw for a free holiday.

Tell the Police that as you understood it he was covered either by his own insurance as a third party or by yours as an additional driver. There is no mass crime of genocide or gang rape as they see it. It's nothing more than an innocent oversight.

It's not uncommon for insurance to offer this.

I'm assuming he doesn't have his own insurance or he'd have said he was driving it with that wouldn't he?

Don't tell the police he is covered under your insurance if he isn't! Insurance companies don't just throw this in - you have to ask for it and in my experience pay extra! I'm sure you would know if your car was covered for other unnamed drivers.

It does seem they are taking his previous into consideration here and assuming he has stolen it though.

Does he actually have a valid licence?

Wig

claire23 wrote: »

Hi

need to know if someone was caught driving someone elses car without their own insurance, is that an automatic charge of theft of a motor vehicle?
Bit puzzled about this, will give background if needed.

Claire

Claire,

Throughout this thread you have not made yourself very clear. You have been given good advice so far.

What you say the police are saying does not make any sense whatsoever, if you gave him permission they cannot automatically decide to charge him with theft. As advised earlier, phone up the police and ask them to repeat what they said to you, preferably go in person to the station with his defence solicitor present. I imagine if you had that conversation on tape all charges would now be dropped.

This is simple.

Did you give him permission to pick up the car to take it away to do mechanical work on it? YES or NO?

If "Yes", he is not guilty of theft or "taking without permission". But he is apparently guilty of "driving without insurance".
If "no" he is guilty of "taking without permission" and possibly but more difficult to convict "theft". and "driving without insurance".

If you did give him permission you are guilty of "allowing a vehicle to be used without insurance" But as mentioned above the defence is "I thought he was covered" and the fine (if any) could be quite small.

MORPH3US

claire23 wrote: »

My problem is im gettin blamed (by his family - my "friends") for him gettin this charge cos i said he didnt have permission.

I'm really confused....

Did he have permission to take your car or not?!? The quote above suggests that you did NOT give permission to the person in which case, yes the person TWOC'd the car.

However further up, you say he took the car to fix it which either means a) he did have permission or b) he didn't have permission but thought he was doing you a favour fixing it so just took it.

Forget about the insurance thing though, that has nothing to do with it IMHO, its all about did he have permission or not. If he did then he can't get done for theft (of your car) but if he didn't then he can...

However it now sounds like the police may be referring to some other theft incident...

astonsmummy

If you tell the feds you didnt give him permission to drive the car then they would obviously look on that as stealing as he's driving it withoutn the owners permission, not hard to understand.

Why you lied about it is beyond me, so now you mate will end up with a car theft charge after he tried to do you a favour. nice.

LandyAndy

astonsmummy wrote: »

If you tell the feds you didnt give him permission to drive the car then they would obviously look on that as stealing as he's driving it withoutn the owners permission, not hard to understand.

Why you lied about it is beyond me, so now you mate will end up with a car theft charge after he tried to do you a favour. nice.

I don't think stealing is a legal term.

Theft is, and is defined in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, see my previous post. I don't believe there is the slightest evidence of theft. There is, however, prima facie evidence of Taking Without the Owner's Consent (TWOCing) as pointed out by MORPH3US