Car stolen - Am I liable?

AdrianC

Snowy5 wrote: »

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

I'm simply speculating that may be why they're pursuing you, even though your son has been convicted.

Arklight

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

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

This with bells on.

Scrapit

Sounds like they are avoiding paying you and trying to get back anything paid to the third party. Are they a big insurance firm? I wouldn't name them.

Dr_Crypto

Why not? They sound like a firm of crooks.
The OP is also a victim of her son’s criminality. That the TWOC’er is her son is irrelevant. If the car had been taken by a passing scrote would these insurers be trying the same trick?

AdrianC

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

If the car had been taken by a passing scrote would these insurers be trying the same trick?

What are the odds of somebody allowing a random passing scrote to use their car, compared to the odds of a parent allowing their child?

Dr_Crypto

Not high but not much different from a situation where the TWOC was reported, the offender convicted and jailed.
I really don’t think the insurers have a hope here.

MEM62

SHAFT wrote: »

What you struggling with?

The sentencing. Compared to what we often see awarded, it seems harsh under the circumstances.

AdrianC

MEM62 wrote: »

The sentencing. Compared to what we often see awarded, it seems harsh under the circumstances.

We don't know the circumstances.

All we know is the very, very basics.
Son steals mother's car. Hits pedestrian with mirror, breaks their arm. No drink, no drugs involved.

Apart from anything else, I'm struggling to see how hitting somebody's arm with a door mirror would break their arm. Mirrors are designed to fold and/or break off at relatively low forces.

missile

AdrianC wrote: »

We don't know the circumstances.

All we know is the very, very basics.
Son steals mother's car. Hits pedestrian with mirror, breaks their arm. No drink, no drugs involved.

Apart from anything else, I'm struggling to see how hitting somebody's arm with a door mirror would break their arm. Mirrors are designed to fold and/or break off at relatively low forces.

Me too. There is much more to this story than we have been told

SHAFT

Snowy5 wrote: »

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.....

It's actually your son who was the one who accepted it as fact.