Third party instructing solicitors to issue court prcodeeings...help

Manxman_in_exile

This is a literally incredible story!

I thought these two bits were unbelieveable: "I was arrested and charged at police station with this. I told them my car must’ve been stolen as I had been elsewhere (I was) they asked if I’d like to report it as stolen, said I did. Anyway I didn’t report it as stolen..."

and

"...I was walking home from a night out and on the phone to a friend. Whilst walking home I come across my car and pieces of it scattered across the road. I stopped, took some photos and carried on. I was in an utter state of disbelief and wondering what was happening. My friend on the phone calmed me down and told me to head home, get some sleep and deal with it in the morning which I planned to",

but then they go on to say that they had left the keys in the ignition after working on it, AND they live in a rough area!

Oh - and they never made an insurance claim...

JamoLew

colinahenderson87 said:

AdrianC said:

OP - let's describe the situation...

You are on your way home, late at night, having partaken of sufficient alcohol to put you above the drink drive limit.
Your car happens to be freshly abandoned on the exact same route you take, freshly impacted into a parked vehicle.
Your story is corroborated only by a friend who you were apparently on the phone to at the time you came across the car, and that the thief/driver was wearing something other than your clothing.
You do not follow through on your allegations it has been stolen.

You have not mentioned whether the keys were used, or whether the car had been broken into and the immobiliser (legally required to be fitted to every car built over the last couple of decades or so) defeated somehow?

What do you think a cynic may believe the most likely chain of events to have been...?

That you drove drunk, crashed, ran away, ditched whatever distinctive item of clothing, then concocted a cover story by phoning your friend and walking round the corner to "make the discovery"...?

Cool, thanks for the help. Not really trying to go over what happened in 2018. More wanting to know what’s going to happen now. 

I’ll answer your questions !!!!!! since: 

1) yes I was walking home after having drunk alcohol; not a crime funnily enough. 

2) I don’t live in a particularly big place so there’s a limited amount of routes I can take.
3) story is corroborated by people I’d been in the pub with and friend on end of the phone. 

4) here’s the thing, the thief was wearing different clothes to me, what a shock we don’t all wear the same clothes. 

5) keys were used as they’d been left in the ignition by me; I’d been doing some work on the car fitting a new stereo before heading out and was then distracted by my housemate and by the time I’d finished talking to him I’d got ready to go out and meet my friends. 

We lived in a particularly rough area. 

6) the car was an older car, first sold in late 90s

more then aware of what a cynic might think, however let’s be clear I was never tried in criminal court. There wasn’t enough of a case. 

Believe what you want, i‘m not that fussed about what you think. I’m just looking for an idea of what might happen now. I thought this had been dealt with. 

I didn’t drive it drunk, crash it and then change my clothing. CCTV was checked, my whereabouts was easily verified.

you do realise we can see what you wrote here -- don't you ?
not nice to call people you are asking for help names

ontheroad1970

Ectophile said:

Regardless of who is the most believable, Admiral are being sued for the damaged car.  They would dearly love to say "not our problem, as the car was stolen at the time".  But somebody failed to report the car as stolen, so that defence won't work.  So as the insurer on record at the time the car was stolen, they will have to pay out.

Admiral won't be happy at paying out on the claim, and I see two possible grounds for not being happy:-

• OP failed to report the car as stolen.
• OP left the keys in the car.

So there is a high chance that Admiral will persue the OP for all they money that have to pay out.

...

Nobody is being prosecuted here.  OP will not end up with a criminal conviction.  But they may end up with a big bill, and may find that the mainstream insurers are rather wary of ever insuring them for many years to come.

If Admiral demand payment and the OP doesn't pay they will likely prosecute him in the County Court  for payment.  

Sandtree

ontheroad1970 said:

Ectophile said:

Regardless of who is the most believable, Admiral are being sued for the damaged car.  They would dearly love to say "not our problem, as the car was stolen at the time".  But somebody failed to report the car as stolen, so that defence won't work.  So as the insurer on record at the time the car was stolen, they will have to pay out.

Admiral won't be happy at paying out on the claim, and I see two possible grounds for not being happy:-

• OP failed to report the car as stolen.
• OP left the keys in the car.

So there is a high chance that Admiral will persue the OP for all they money that have to pay out.

...

Nobody is being prosecuted here.  OP will not end up with a criminal conviction.  But they may end up with a big bill, and may find that the mainstream insurers are rather wary of ever insuring them for many years to come.

If Admiral demand payment and the OP doesn't pay they will likely prosecute him in the County Court  for payment.  

Prosecution is in relation to criminal offences and Admiral wouldn't look to bring private charges; they may sue him for their outlay if the policy terms allow (eg for drunk driving)

Alternatively they may decide to defend the OP, maintain that the driver was not the OP and was indeed a thief who remains unidentified and therefore no liability emerges.

The OP needs to be discussing the matter with the appropriate technical department at his insurers (rather than the first line call centre agents)

Manxman_in_exile

ontheroad1970 said:

Ectophile said:

Regardless of who is the most believable, Admiral are being sued for the damaged car.  They would dearly love to say "not our problem, as the car was stolen at the time".  But somebody failed to report the car as stolen, so that defence won't work.  So as the insurer on record at the time the car was stolen, they will have to pay out.

Admiral won't be happy at paying out on the claim, and I see two possible grounds for not being happy:-

• OP failed to report the car as stolen.
• OP left the keys in the car.

So there is a high chance that Admiral will persue the OP for all they money that have to pay out.

...

Nobody is being prosecuted here.  OP will not end up with a criminal conviction.  But they may end up with a big bill, and may find that the mainstream insurers are rather wary of ever insuring them for many years to come.

If Admiral demand payment and the OP doesn't pay they will likely prosecute him in the County Court  for payment.  

Prosecute him?  The point Ectophile is making is that it will be a civil matter between Admiral and the OP, not a criminal one.  (ie no prosecution)

ontheroad1970

Sandtree said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Ectophile said:

Regardless of who is the most believable, Admiral are being sued for the damaged car.  They would dearly love to say "not our problem, as the car was stolen at the time".  But somebody failed to report the car as stolen, so that defence won't work.  So as the insurer on record at the time the car was stolen, they will have to pay out.

Admiral won't be happy at paying out on the claim, and I see two possible grounds for not being happy:-

• OP failed to report the car as stolen.
• OP left the keys in the car.

So there is a high chance that Admiral will persue the OP for all they money that have to pay out.

...

Nobody is being prosecuted here.  OP will not end up with a criminal conviction.  But they may end up with a big bill, and may find that the mainstream insurers are rather wary of ever insuring them for many years to come.

If Admiral demand payment and the OP doesn't pay they will likely prosecute him in the County Court  for payment.  

Prosecution is in relation to criminal offences and Admiral wouldn't look to bring private charges; they may sue him for their outlay if the policy terms allow (eg for drunk driving)

Alternatively they may decide to defend the OP, maintain that the driver was not the OP and was indeed a thief who remains unidentified and therefore no liability emerges.

The OP needs to be discussing the matter with the appropriate technical department at his insurers (rather than the first line call centre agents)

To prosecute is to take someone to court.  Doesn't matter what the purpose is.  There are criminal prosecutions and civil prosecutions.  

If you fail to pay a debt then someone will prosecute you in the county court.

To prosecute is a verb.  It isn't just relevant to criminal courts.  It is the verb to instigate ANY legal proceedings.

MinuteNoodles

colinahenderson87 said:

What do you mean about the burden of proof being lower in civil courts. 

In a criminal court or higher court it must be proven beyond doubt. So in that court it would have to proven beyond doubt you were driving at the time of the accident. 

In a small claims court, a ruling can be based on the balance of probability.

KimJongUn88

If this happened a different way and the OP had actually been driving whilst drunk and collided with a third party, there would be a good chance that the insurer concerned would deal with the claim as normal and pay out to the third party without any hassle or seeking reimbursement from the OP.

However it seems this didn’t happen in this instance.

Day_Of_The_Doris

ontheroad1970 said:

To prosecute is to take someone to court.  Doesn't matter what the purpose is.  There are criminal prosecutions and civil prosecutions.  

A private prosecution is a prosecution for a criminal offence that is undertaken by someone other than the CPS, the police or any other prosecuting authority.
The legislation that allows a private prosecution to take place is covered under S6.1 of the Prosecution of offences act 1985:

6 Prosecutions instituted and conducted otherwise than by the Service.

(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, nothing in this Part shall preclude any person from instituting any criminal proceedings or conducting any criminal proceedings to which the Director’s duty to take over the conduct of proceedings does not apply.

There are many legally based websites that confirm this:
https://lexlaw.co.uk/private-prosecutions-lawyers-london/

Private prosecutions are prosecutions for a criminal offence initiated by a private citizen or entity which is not acting on behalf of the police or any prosecuting authority. A private prosecution is essentially the same as a standard criminal trial but one which is not brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

&
http://www.mccue-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/UK-guide-to-private-prosecution1.pdf

1. A member of the public can bring a private prosecution for any offence, unless the offence is one for which the consent of the Attorney General (AG) or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is required before a prosecution can take place. S.6(1) of the PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT 1985 (POA). 2. The private prosecution is commenced by laying an ‘information’ at, followed by the issue of a warrant by, a magistrate’s court. Rule 7.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (Crim.PR).

for just 2 examples

ontheroad1970

Look up the oxford English Dictionary for the verb 'to prosecute'.