Car stolen - Am I liable?

facade

Snowy5 wrote: »

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.

But you are not liable, the car was TWOC'd, and the perpetrator has been caught and convicted. The fact that he is a relative doesn't matter.



They might get a payment order against him, but it will only be coppers as he is not earning, and not likely to in the future.

Nick_C

AdrianC wrote: »

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?

I don't think OP is underplaying anything. We constantly hear news stories of people committing serious crimes and getting off with a suspended sentence. I am surprised that this resulted in a custodial sentence. Not convinced locking sometime up with career criminals and surrounded by drugs is the ideal way to treat a first offender. Anyway, that's all immaterial. The parent deserves our sympathy and support.

Snowy5

Not quite sure how I'm underplaying the serious of the offence?

I'm fully aware of how bad this is and how terrible it could have potentially been. All my sympathies are with the pedestrian.

Thank you for your comments, constructive and otherwise.

Dr_Crypto

You aren’t liable personally for anything. Your car was TWOC’d. I don’t know why you’re focusing so much on what the judge said at the sentencing. You need to explain to your insurers that your car was TWOC’d and that the criminal has been convicted of the same and jailed.
What are your insurers saying that makes you think you are going to have to pay anything?

Dr_Crypto

AdrianC wrote: »

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

That’s why I mentioned about him being charged and charged and convicted of dangerous or careless driving. I mentioned drugs as that tends to move things up the scale. We now know that he was not under such influence.

It’s harsh but lawful sentence. What injuries did the pedestrian sustain? What were the circumstances?
Either way the sentence has been passed and unless the son appeals that’s that.

MEM62

worried_jim wrote: »

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

I'm struggling with that one too.

caprikid1

"I thought I was liable for the compensation until the judge's comments in court."


Struggling with that one

SHAFT

MEM62 wrote: »

I'm struggling with that one too.

What you struggling with?

Snowy5

He's been convicted and doing his time. Views on punishment are immaterial now.

My insurers have said if I do not agree to pay/sign indemnity form they will not negotiate the settlement and would take me to court to get it.

AdrianC

Snowy5 wrote: »

My insurers have said if I do not agree to pay/sign indemnity form they will not negotiate the settlement and would take me to court to get it.

So they're asking you to voluntarily agree to pay, else they'll ask a court if you're liable.

And would they win in court? Probably not, if you can persuade the court that you GENUINELY did not consent to him driving.