Hello folks,
I've been pondering this one over the past few days. Nothing untoward in this just, as I say, pondering.
I am on the insurance for my wife's car, as she is for mine. If she had, say, gone shopping on the bus, would I be guilty of taking without consent if I took her car out without asking her first? Or is there implied consent as I am on her insurance?
Cheers,
B.
|
|
If you are a named driver you can drive it. I suspect even if she claims you stole it, as you are named, you are insured.
|
|
I know I'm insured, Z but can a pedantic copper do me for 'TWOC-ing' the car, as I hadn't had my wife's express permission?
|
If she claims its nicked, yes he could.
but could he also nick you for no insurance? dont think so unless the policy states you as a named driver "with the owners consent"
|
|
Like I say, the situation would never present itself. I was just interested in the hypotheticals... :-)
|
I saw an episode of Police Murder Chase Death Kill (or something) where after a row, a girlfriend had left in her partner's Ferrari. He, in a fit of pique, reported it stolen.
The car was spottted, and was being followed by a Police Subaru while they got the helecopter up etc, when she pulled over and asked why they were following her, explaining who she was and that she was on the insurance.
IIRC, the chap who reported the car as stolen was prosecuted for wasting police time. She had not committed any offence.
|
>> I saw an episode of Police Murder Chase Death Kill (or something) where after a
>> row, a girlfriend had left in her partner's Ferrari. He, in a fit of pique,
>> reported it stolen.
>>
>> The car was spottted, and was being followed by a Police Subaru while they got
>> the helecopter up etc, when she pulled over and asked why they were following her,
>> explaining who she was and that she was on the insurance.
>>
>> IIRC, the chap who reported the car as stolen was prosecuted for wasting police time.
>> She had not committed any offence.
>>
I suspect he got done because he changed his mind to save his relationship, if he had stuck to his story she would have been done.
|
I don't think the insurance has anything to do with consent. Supposing you had genuine "driving any other car" cover, that would not give you consent to drive anybody else's car you fancied.
I would suggest the consent arises because you are married, have an understanding that you commonly borrow each other possessions, and because she would, if questioned, presumably confirm your claim that she allowed you to drive her car.
But if she had just stormed off to her mother's screaming "and don't you dare touch my car!" then I don't think it could be considered consent, even with insurance.
|
>>But if she had just stormed off to her mother's...
Ah, now that *is* entirely possible... :-)
|
I am surprised no-one has called a car a TWOC.
The Ford TWOC.
|
The post impliesthe pair are living together.
Whilst SHMBO may make an allegation that hubby hasd taken without consent there is a clause in the Theft Act 1968:
A person does not commit an offence under this section (TWOC) by anything done in the belief that he has lawful authority to do it or that he would have the owner’s consent if the owner knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it.
Being together and named on the Insurance I believe that Plod would not entertain a complaint.
dvd
|
|
When I saw the thread title, I thought it was a thread about the Triumph Witesse Owners Club, or some such.
|
Interesting.
Locally, there's been a few cases of late where kid takes mummy's/daddy's car out for a spin, and prangs it/gets caught driving without license/insurance.
Cops now have to speak to parents: IF the car was taken with or without their permission?
If YES, then parents get nicked as well, for allowing kid to drive; if NO, then kid gets done for theft.
|
TWOC - Zero
