Can husband have wife arrested for using family car without husband's permission?

unholyangel

Nick_C wrote: »

I doubt that she would be arrested for theft, as there has to be an intention to permanently deprive. But she could be arrested and charged for taking the vehicle without consent.

All thats required to show intent to permanently deprive is for you to treat the item as your own/in a way thats inconsistent with the owners rights. Which is why its still theft to steal money and then replace it with equivalent notes later, because you still took their money and are unable to return it exactly as it existed before you stole it.

But twoc doesn't require intent to permanently deprive.

paddedjohn

Grezz24 wrote: »

Worth pointing out that if the insurance has now ended it needs to either be insured again or have a SORN if parked on the road etc.

If it's not taxed or insured then it must be on Sorn AND stored off the road.

unforeseen

itsanne wrote: »

In the case of a car used by a married couple, ownership of any property is usually classed as joint and if the husband was stopped driving the vehicle without insurance the police would probably accept that he was joint owner and not look to the wife for additional offences, such as owner permitting no insurance

That is wrong. There have been cases in court where either the spouse has been prosecuted for allowing the person to use the vehicle when not insured or convictions where the spouse has reported the person for TWOC to prevent a charge of allowing an uninsured driver to use the vehicle.

It may be joint assets when it comes to divorce bu that is as far as it goes. I think whoever wrote that has extrapolated (badly) from the company car scenario without really understanding

gday064

If its parked on your drive... there's an argument there that he's leaving it for your daughter/the kids. What an awful guy.

Comms69

gday064 wrote: »

If its parked on your drive... there's an argument there that he's leaving it for your daughter/the kids. What an awful guy.

There's literally not enough info to start throwing around names.

Redacted

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q830.htm
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q679.htm
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q871.htm

Additionally, is the car owned outright or is there any finance attached? If it’s a PCP/PCH, your daughter may need to aquaint herself with the terms of the contract to determine if she can keep driving the vehicle.

unforeseen

830 makes the same mistake as the other one that was quoted. There is nothing in road traffic regulations that can class a vehicle as joint assets for any potential offence. It is either the owner (the person whose name is on the receipt or contract), the keeper (the person named on the V5c) or the driver. There is nothing there to say that Freda can drive it because she is married to Fred who bought the vehicle and is the registered keeper as well as having the purchase receipt in his name and can't be used in any mitigation. It is Fred's car and if he says that Freda can't drive it then that will be TWOC if she does.

Unfortunately police tend to get sloping shoulders when it comes to couples and claim it is a civil dispute because their little brains are struggling to work things out.

NBLondon

unforeseen wrote: »

There is nothing there to say that Freda can drive it because she is married to Fred who bought the vehicle and is the registered keeper as well as having the purchase receipt in his name and can't be used in any mitigation

Is it not just an assumption that a spouse does have permission unless otherwise stated viz.

. It is Fred's car and if he says that Freda can't drive it then that will be TWOC if she does.

but if Fred is not available to state that; the assumption is that Freda has permission. Where permission was given (openly or tactily) in the past - the police are assuming it remains until explicitly withdrawn.

unforeseen

So you are saying that if stopped and asked whether you have permission to drive a vehicle not in your name then it is a valid defence to say my spouse has let me drive it before so I have permission? I don't think so

What ask the police say is not what happens in real life. They will want to speak to the registered keeper/owner and confirm before saying its OK. These sort of situations have even been shown on programs such as Police Interceptors where the spouse who is the keeper has been given the option of reporting TWOC or being charged with allowing a person to drive who is not insured.

NBLondon

No - I'm saying that they may well assume a spouse has ongoing permission. Nothing about it being a defence. You're saying they would (always?) check. May depend on the reason for the stop, the mood of the officer and the results of the attitude test.