It's a fair point if he is a named driver on his mother's policy though as others have said will have to be careful if she knew he'd been drinking. The case I mentioned the son wasn't on the policy and had to be treated as a thief to cover the damage to the car
Hes not a named driver mate. He doesnt even own a car at the moment so he has no insurance of his own
If she sticks with not giving consent then the insurance company will have to consider it as theft. She should be covered for the car. If she gave her consent then the insurance company could deny any claim as he was over the limit. Things may be different in the UK but that's generally how insurance works. (I've been dealing with it for years) If the insurance company accept the claim they may attempt to recover costs off him but the payment plan can be negotiated
Yeah so if she says she let him drive, which she will probably want to do he is her boy after all, she could get up to 6 points and £5 k fine. On top of that the insurance company won't pay out as she committed an driving offence by allowing someone else to and that's without the driving under the influence.
Aye if was a named driver on the car she still wouldn't get a pay out as he was over the limit at the time of the accident. To be honest if he is not a named driver it probably makes the insurance claim side of it easier as I'm sure if he was a named driver and she reported him for twoc the insurance company would try to wiggle out of it saying yeah but he is a named driver so there is inplied consent there or some nonsense.
And most insurance policies treat someone driving with your permission, ie named driver, as if you were driving the vehicle. As much as it will go against her motherly instincts she has to distance herself from what he did. He'll cop a few more charges but financially they will most likely be better off
Aye not only that imo he has to learn now that there are consequences for his actions and his Mam isn't always going to be able to protect him. Drink driving is one of those offences aswell that the person commiting it rarely learns from, I reckon in this instance as they both could have dies he might. But your usual got pulled over 3 times over got a years ban people will be back doing it again. I worked with a bloke who was on his 3rd ban and honestly wasn't embarrassed in the slightest and was clear he would do it again. He was a bit taken aback when he told another lad about him being on a ban and the other bloke got angry in front of our eyes, could see he was trying to reign it in as the bloke on a ban was the owner of the small company we worked for. Turned out this bloke had received some pretty bad injuries and was lucky to be alive when he was hit head on driving up on the motorway late at night by a drink driver! Also know someone who got caught and by sheer luck bit of dodgy stuff got away with it. The policeman attended their house and said I'd take that as your one chance cause I will get you again if you carry on. Sure enough few months or so later they got caught by same copper!
Over here Drink driving stays on your record for 10 years. Any job you apply for that requires a police check it will come up on
I'm still weighing all this up but ... ... if he's twoc'd the car doesn't that mean he's driving without consent or insurance. If that's the case surely she won't receive a penny..
Her own insurance should pay out in that case, as it will be classed as theft, which she should be covered for.
She will mate cause its no different from some unknown stealing your car after burgling your home and getting the keys. Just cause he is family and had easier access to the keys he still twoc'd the car. He isn't driving with her permission to take the car so doesn't matter if he is insured if she gave him permission it would matter!
Good point. I suppose it's theft if he has no implied consent from previous use. If he's had the use of the car I expect that might cloud the issue.
Think that is the overall consensus, his punishment could differ depending on a lot of things. If she says she let him drive it at least she is going to lose the insurance payout potentially driving offences against her and he won't learn a valuable lesson!
Yeah it's theft just because he is family and had access to the keys he still stole it. With implied consent depends on what the verbal agreement was between them but she could argue there is no way she would have let him take the car whilst over the limit and he knew this hence he took the car without her knowing, especially if other times he always let her know etc... As I said previously if there are other times he has borrowed it and he was a named driver then the insurance provider would be rubbing their hands together thinking they could get out of a claim, but legally she would be OK. But tees said he wasn't a named driver and had no insurance of his own so I assume doesn't have use of the car usually.
His mam needs to distance herself from everything the lad has done tbf. Lucky he didn't kill himself or more importantly somebody else.
If he’s not a named driver and dosent have insurance of his own then he ducked. The mother would be mad to say she gave him permission, it’s time to put his big boy pants on and take whatever is coming his way. Dosent diving over the limit negate the insurance policy anyway?
