Smart Car Stolen

Grumpy_chap

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The other possibility is that the owner knew very well who the driver was and had allowed him to borrow the car.  Crash happens and driver claims theft/TWOC to get the driver off the hook.  He ran away, after all, which suggests he was not insured to drive.  It also, conveniently, absolves the owner of liability for a 'use, cause, permit' offence.  The owner, therefore, has a lot to gain by this being an act of theft, and a lot to lose by it being a case of a loan gone wrong.  Unfortunately, then, the circumstances point to the latter with the theft element being the cover story.  
This is also where the second key becomes relevant.  The driver, we assume, used something to start the car.  This could have been a genuine second key, a copy or some variant of a skeleton key.  He crashed and ran for it but, dashed inconveniently, had the presence of mind to turn the engine off, pull his key out of the ignition and take it with him.  He did not, we are told, use the owner's main key; but without it there is nothing to disprove the allegation that the owner gave the driver her second key.  The owner claims this is not possible, as she has never had a second key, but again there is nothing to support this account over the other one.  The second key's mysterious disappearance does not help. 

This theory falls down rather.  If the owner had given the second key to a friend who then crashed the car, but took the key with him before running away, surely the friend would give the second key back to the owner, who then has two keys and can satisfy the insurance co that the car was stolen.

AdrianC

...perhaps a key was found in the ignition, post-crash?

Ditzy_Mitzy

Grumpy_chap said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The other possibility is that the owner knew very well who the driver was and had allowed him to borrow the car.  Crash happens and driver claims theft/TWOC to get the driver off the hook.  He ran away, after all, which suggests he was not insured to drive.  It also, conveniently, absolves the owner of liability for a 'use, cause, permit' offence.  The owner, therefore, has a lot to gain by this being an act of theft, and a lot to lose by it being a case of a loan gone wrong.  Unfortunately, then, the circumstances point to the latter with the theft element being the cover story.  
This is also where the second key becomes relevant.  The driver, we assume, used something to start the car.  This could have been a genuine second key, a copy or some variant of a skeleton key.  He crashed and ran for it but, dashed inconveniently, had the presence of mind to turn the engine off, pull his key out of the ignition and take it with him.  He did not, we are told, use the owner's main key; but without it there is nothing to disprove the allegation that the owner gave the driver her second key.  The owner claims this is not possible, as she has never had a second key, but again there is nothing to support this account over the other one.  The second key's mysterious disappearance does not help. 

This theory falls down rather.  If the owner had given the second key to a friend who then crashed the car, but took the key with him before running away, surely the friend would give the second key back to the owner, who then has two keys and can satisfy the insurance co that the car was stolen.

That only works if there's sufficient forward planning between the two parties.  The owner would have to know in advance that the driver would return the key to her and, indeed, that he had retained possession of it rather than throwing it into the nearest bush.  Otherwise it would not be possible to give an account that relies on the owner still having possession of the second key, as she may be requested to produce it.  We are, however, overthinking.  The most logical sequence is: car gone, car found without key, key taken by driver, owner denies existence of second key.  The owner cannot know, at that point, that the second key can be returned.  Bear in mind this only happened a few minutes after the crash.  

DCFC79

Any news OP ?

jk0

DCFC79 said:

Any news OP ?

GF has now had three phone interviews by the insurers, asking the same questions. Presumably applying voice stress analysis and trying to catch her out giving different answers.

knightstyle

Our older Smart car had the key down by the gear lever an it was possible to use a key from a padlock to unlock it!  perhaps this is what the thief used?  Still had to unlock the doors with the proper key though.

daveyjp

Current forfour is a Renault Twingo and has the ignition on the steering column.

coffeehound

You'd think if someone were planning a fake car theft, they'd make sure to leave evidence of forced entry.  It's all hypothetical, though.

Scrapit

jk0 said:

DCFC79 said:

Any news OP ?

GF has now had three phone interviews by the insurers, asking the same questions. Presumably applying voice stress analysis and trying to catch her out giving different answers.

Is that a thing? Or are the enhanced CIA integrators from guantanamo filling in whilst on furlough?

[Deleted User]

Scrapit said:

jk0 said:

DCFC79 said:

Any news OP ?

GF has now had three phone interviews by the insurers, asking the same questions. Presumably applying voice stress analysis and trying to catch her out giving different answers.

Is that a thing? Or are the enhanced CIA integrators from guantanamo filling in whilst on furlough?

No, it's very much a thing if you'd simply looked instead of rushing to put in a snarky reply. Multiple articles show trials at the very least have been going on since 2003, Admiral, Esure and Halifax were doing it way back then. The firms didn't use the analysis as proof of fraud, but rather to flag calls for further investigation of suspicious elements

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108474429424412744

https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/hbos-pilots-voice-stress-lie-detector/1342255.article

https://www.lovemoney.com/news/1144/how-lie-detectors-test-claimants

https://www.theregister.com/2003/11/28/insurer_taps_voice_analysis_tech/

Admiral claimed 1/4 of their claims were withdrawn after the customers were told they were being recorded and analysed, when the firm called them back and gave them the opportunity to cancel it (though they did say that might include people who had claimed a car was stolen, and then found it so didn't need to claim).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3227849.stm

China Pacific (a Fortune Global 500 firm with 139m customers in China) launched it this year for life insurance claims

https://www.lifeinsuranceinternational.com/news/cpic-selects-nemesyscos-voice-analytics-to-reduce-life-insurance-fraud/

For a problem that costs £1bn a year, it's worth them running it and the voice industry is expanding it for all sorts of areas, from improving call handling to helping in recruitment. Heck, I've done a voice recording as part of security for my bank

https://www.theweek.in/news/biz-tech/2020/12/10/AI-plus-emotion-intelligence-will-be-the-next-great-thing.html