Car stolen - Am I liable?

Dr_Crypto

Snowy5 wrote: »

The insurance company have said I am liable as I am the policy holder.

The judge, when sentencing, asserted that as the MIB would pay out to the victim, he would convert any monetary penalties into a custodial sentence.

My son was working a full time job before the sentence and planning to pay me so I could pay the claim.

Now he has lost his job and won't be so easy to get another with a record.

Therefore, the judge's ignorance and refusal to believe me leaves me as a victim also as I have very little money.

There’s no way a Crown Court Judge said that. The judge was sentencing for the criminal matter - TWOC.
It is possible that the judge was explaining why they were not awarding compensation for the pedestrian’s injuries - on the basis that the pedestrian could recover damages from the MIB. Of course the judge was mistaken about it being the MIB rather than your insurer but that’s by the by.

Leaving aside the judge and the sentence, you need to explain to the insurer that the car was TWOC’d and provide proof such as evidence of your son’s conviction.

photome

Car_54 wrote: »

This is a dark matter.

beginning to look that way

Dr_Crypto

worried_jim wrote: »

20 months for a first offence of twocing your car? Wow! The courts have got very tough.

It can’t be just for the TWOC. That’s summary only and up to 6 months. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/vehicle-taking-without-consent-revised-2017/

The son must have been charged with other offences such as dangerous/ careless driving resulting in injury to the pedestrian. Perhaps this “mental health episode” also involved him driving while under the influence of drink and or drugs?

SHAFT

Scrapit wrote: »

As a victim of crime do you not get compensated? And for the damage to the motor?

Compensated by who? The sons in prison and has no means to pay.

mobileron

Sounds like a good Judge to me,we need more like that,
Bet he never steals another car in his lifetime.

AdrianC

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

It can’t be just for the TWOC. That’s summary only and up to 6 months. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/vehicle-taking-without-consent-revised-2017/

The son must have been charged with other offences such as dangerous/ careless driving resulting in injury to the pedestrian. Perhaps this “mental health episode” also involved him driving while under the influence of drink and or drugs?

Still only 6mo max, summary only.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/drug-driving-guidance-only/

OP - can you give us any more detail, please? What was your son charged with and convicted of?

I think you're still confusing YOUR personal liability with your son's.

If your car was genuinely taken without your consent, and you worked with the police on that basis even when the culprit was clear, then the insurer don't have a leg to pursue you. They have to pay, and since there is an identifiable culprit, that individual can be pursued for the costs. You personally do not owe a penny. Your son does. If you wish to pay that on behalf of your son, then such is your right.

If, otoh, there is any suspicion that you gave even tacit permission for the car to be used, they certainly may pursue you.

Snowy5

Charged with twoc and causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Not under the influence of drink/drugs etc. A moment of extreme stupidness unfortunately and totally out of character.

He was sentenced at Crown Court NOT Majestrates (where sentence is max 6 months).

I thought I was liable for the compensation until the judge's comments in court. Now I realise as debtdebt said the judge was wrong and I am liable as I first thought.

The settlement is being negotiated atm and I will pay monthly what I can.

AdrianC

Snowy5 wrote: »

Charged with twoc and causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

Ah, OK.

Dangerous alone is either-way triable, with a max of 2yrs. Serious Injury by Dangerous is max 5yrs - it's effectively treated the same as GBH/ABH with the same injuries would have been without the car.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/section/143/enacted

Not under the influence of drink/drugs etc. A moment of extreme stupidness unfortunately and totally out of character.

Which the judge would have taken into account in his sentencing. Because it's crown court only, the magistrate sentencing guidelines aren't available, but even before the introduction of the "causing serious injury by..." he'd have been outside the normal magistrate sentencing, and it would have gone to crown court simply because of the injuries to an innocent party. So he'd have been absolutely looking at more than 6mo, even with a 2yr max - 25%+ of max sentence, while he's ended up with 33% (20mo vs 60mo). He's going to be at the lower end of the sentencing range.

Snowy5

Thank you AdrianC for that information. I expected something like a 2 year sentence, but not custodial.

He was fined £140 total, to be paid by May 2021! It makes far more sense to me to have made him work to pay the compensation to the victim.

AdrianC

Snowy5 wrote: »

Thank you AdrianC for that information. I expected something like a 2 year sentence, but not custodial.

He was fined £140 total, to be paid by May 2021! It makes far more sense to me to have made him work to pay the compensation to the victim.

Any non-custodial sentence would have seen a far higher financial penalty.

I think you're underplaying the seriousness of his offence. Causing a broken limb to a totally innocent bystander with any other object than a car would be a shoe-in for being charged with Grievous Bodily Harm.

If it'd been your son injured by somebody else, how would you be viewing a fine and non-custodial sentence?