Car stolen - Am I liable?

Dr_Crypto

He’s been convicted of TWOC. How would the insurer show that she allowed him to use the car when he’s already been found guilty to the higher criminal standard?

I’d tell them to GTFO. These insurers are clearly a bunch of chancers.

AdrianC

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

He’s been convicted of TWOC. How would the insurer show that she allowed him to use the car when he’s already been found guilty to the higher criminal standard?

Yup, that'd certainly be in the OP's favour.

I've just re-read the thread, and the OP hasn't said that there was a trial. Was there, and this came up in evidence and the OP gave a witness statement, rather than the son simply pleading guilty...? The (bulk of?) the sentence was for the dangerous driving, not the TWOC. For all we know from what the OP's said so far, the son could have been charged with both, pled guilty to the more serious offence, but not guilty to the TWOC - which was then dropped to save time/costs because they'd got a result.

That'd certainly explain why the insurers were still trying to pursue their policyholder...

DoaM

Might be worth getting some advice from CAB or a solicitor offering a free 30 mins consultation ... as others have said above, YOU have no liability for the costs - your son does. Ergo the insurer are chasing the wrong party.

Perhaps also worthy of a complaint to the relevant ombudsman? Have you raised a formal complaint with the insurer?

Edit - didn't see the additional replies before I responded. It seems the others are saying the same.

Snowy5

Son admitted complete responsibility immediately. No trial, just hearings and sentencing.

AdrianC

He pled guilty to both charges?

So you never had to stand up in court and say "No, I did not give him permission to drive".

That's what the insurer are going on. It's straw-clutching, but if it gets their several thousand pounds repaid...

Right now, they're just asking you nicely to agree.
If you say no, will they take you to court?
If they do, will they win?

Snowy5

As I explained earlier, I pressed charges with the police for him taking my car without consent. I also said he admitted full responsibility and plead guilty to all charges immediately.

StumpyPumpy

Based on what you have said on this thread I think that the insurance company is trying it on. They are going after the person they think is more likely to pay them which is you rather than an imprisoned felon with no income and, I assume, no meaningful assets. You need a lawyer to tell you what your prospects are but in your position I'd be willing to see the insurance company in court.

SP

AdrianC

Snowy5 wrote: »

As I explained earlier, I pressed charges with the police for him taking my car without consent.

You don't press charges - the CPS do, based on the evidence the police produce. They will take your preferences into account, especially if you had not wanted to.

The insurer seem to be taking the view that charges being laid does not prove either way that you definitely did or did not give permission. They seem to be taking the view that you have never stood up in court and said "No, I definitely did not give him permission to take my car".

Whether they will ever make it progress that far is a question they will have to decide internally after you say "No" to their request to agree you will pay.

DoaM

As above.

Say No now ... you can always capitulate later (if you absolutely feel you need to), but saying No now will make the insurer think twice and they may back away.

Snowy5

AdrianC not sure why you're re-iterating that the insurers needed me to stand up in court and deny permission was granted?

The police interviewed me/took statement at the time and they advised me to press charges against my son. I did so and signed a document stating so.

All potential charges (obviously including my statement of him twoc) were sent to the CPS who charged him with these offences. He was found guilty of all.

Whether I say verbally in court, or in a written statement accepted by a crown court judge as fact.....