FML

[tigerj360]

What damage is done to.the car? Split the car to get some more cash?

Scrap you wold proberbly only get a few hundred

The whole front end in ruined, sump, body, engine mounts, front suspension, airbags were deployed.

Not much to break really except the alloys which are just standard. I had so many plans for the car thank god i hadn't done anything to it before it got broken! 

[jeynesey]

What are you still doing on here, why aren't you at the police station?

I really hope you have reported him for taking your car. If you haven't I can promise you that you will be out of pocket eventually.


He isn't a "Friend".

Nick

[tigerj360]

What are you still doing on here, why aren't you at the police station?

I really hope you have reported him for taking your car. If you haven't I can promise you that you will be out of pocket eventually.


He isn't a "Friend".

Nick

He has already been charged mate and statements given, he's going to court in the next week!

I'm already out of pocket with the police involved 

[Mikester]

Someone taking you car without your permission to take someone home isnt theft/stealing. FACT. As they intended to give it back. Therefor by definition isnt theft.

It is however "taking without owners consent" which is also an offence otherwise known as TWOC. Thom has said this.

Sorry, I don't see the difference between the definitions of 'taking a car without permission' and 'taking a car without owners consent'.

The acts both look the same to me. But I'm not an expert.

You have quoted me incorrectly. I was pointing to how this wasnt a theft of this vehicle but the offence of TWOC.

Unfortunately its a common misconception.

The definition of theft is dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. As he only used the car to take a mate home, but unfortunately crashed it, he hasn't stolen (committed theft of motor vehicle) as he never intended to permanently deprive the other (being the owner) of it (being the car) as had he of not crashed it his intentions (from what we know) was to return the car whilst his mate was sleeping.

He has however dishonestly taken the vehicle (as he didnt ask permission of the owner, who would should of said no if asked as he had no insurance), and so taking it without the owners consent. Which is the offence of TWOC. They are basically the same offence although to commit theft you MUST intend to permanently deprive the other of the item you are thieving where as TWOC is just taking it without asking intending to return it.

I appreciate it is a bit strange but that is the law. No two ways about it im afraid.

The reality is the sentence etc would be one of the same anyway, give or take a bit.

Section 1 of the theft act covers the theft http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1

Section 12 of the theft act covers TWOC http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/12

Hope that clears things up in this thread

[jeynesey]

What are you still doing on here, why aren't you at the police station?

I really hope you have reported him for taking your car. If you haven't I can promise you that you will be out of pocket eventually.


He isn't a "Friend".

Nick

He has already been charged mate and statements given, he's going to court in the next week!

I'm already out of pocket with the police involved 

Good news. You should get back any costs you have incurred too, you just need to forward them the courts. Anything genuine (loss of earnings etc) should be taken into account.

[bobotheclown]

What are you still doing on here, why aren't you at the police station?

I really hope you have reported him for taking your car. If you haven't I can promise you that you will be out of pocket eventually.


He isn't a "Friend".

Nick

I think the police might be a bit busy what with other things going on

[The Mighty Elvi]

Worth checking your insurance policy just in case your mate won't pay up. 

From: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-1692502/Is-this-car-insurance-clause-fair.html 


My son age 16 took my car without permission and crashed into a wall.


The car is now a write-off but the insurance company say they will not pay out unless my son is charged with theft of the vehicle. Are they allowed to do this?

R.H., Havant, Hampshire



Simon Moon from This is Money replies: You were working away from home when your son decided to go for a joyride in your S-reg Fiat Bravo and hit a wall.

Given the car's age, the cost of repair was greater than the value of the vehicle which was deemed a write-off by your insurers, Broker Direct.

You say there is a clause in your policy that states if there is loss or damage caused by unauthorised use of the vehicle by a family member or someone known to you, that person must be charged before the insurance company will accept liability.

Your son was subsequently charged by the police with aggravated taking without the owner's consent, driving without a licence and insurance.

However, when you next spoke to Broker Direct you were told they would pay up only if your son was charged with theft.

Joyriders are not charged with theft because it is not their intention to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle. This is why we have the separate offence of 'taking without the owner's consent' which gives us the slang term 'twocking'.

I spoke to Broker Direct who defended their stance by claiming the punishment likely to be imposed by a court was not sufficient to deter families from turning a blind eye to this kind of behaviour. I should add there is no suggestion you were guilty of any kind of collusion.

Broker Direct refuse to budge and you have now decided to take your case to the Financial Ombudsman Service who will check to see if the terms and conditions of your insurance policy are fair and reasonable.

My guess is that they are likely to find in your favour, but it will be some weeks or even months before you get a verdict.

I look forward to hearing how you get on.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-1692502/Is-this-car-insurance-clause-fair.html#ixzz1UTVnboWC

[tigerj360]

Worth checking your insurance policy just in case your mate won't pay up. 

From: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-1692502/Is-this-car-insurance-clause-fair.html 


My son age 16 took my car without permission and crashed into a wall.


The car is now a write-off but the insurance company say they will not pay out unless my son is charged with theft of the vehicle. Are they allowed to do this?

R.H., Havant, Hampshire



Simon Moon from This is Money replies: You were working away from home when your son decided to go for a joyride in your S-reg Fiat Bravo and hit a wall.

Given the car's age, the cost of repair was greater than the value of the vehicle which was deemed a write-off by your insurers, Broker Direct.

You say there is a clause in your policy that states if there is loss or damage caused by unauthorised use of the vehicle by a family member or someone known to you, that person must be charged before the insurance company will accept liability.

Your son was subsequently charged by the police with aggravated taking without the owner's consent, driving without a licence and insurance.

However, when you next spoke to Broker Direct you were told they would pay up only if your son was charged with theft.

Joyriders are not charged with theft because it is not their intention to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle. This is why we have the separate offence of 'taking without the owner's consent' which gives us the slang term 'twocking'.

I spoke to Broker Direct who defended their stance by claiming the punishment likely to be imposed by a court was not sufficient to deter families from turning a blind eye to this kind of behaviour. I should add there is no suggestion you were guilty of any kind of collusion.

Broker Direct refuse to budge and you have now decided to take your case to the Financial Ombudsman Service who will check to see if the terms and conditions of your insurance policy are fair and reasonable.

My guess is that they are likely to find in your favour, but it will be some weeks or even months before you get a verdict.

I look forward to hearing how you get on.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-1692502/Is-this-car-insurance-clause-fair.html#ixzz1UTVnboWC

Cheers Elvi