L33_WRX

If not should they change the name to Third party, Fire, Theft and Taking without consent?

bugeyeandy

Yes it is.

Car theft

L33_WRX

definitions say different...

TWOC
Taking Without Owners Consent derives from the wording of s12 Theft Act 1968 and it has become the term used by the police in England and Wales to describe any unauthorised use of a car or other conveyance that is not actual theft. Since the taking need not involve an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the car, it is easier to prove than theft (this having an element of with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of their goods). The term came to prominence with a sharp rise in car crime in the early-1990s.

THEFT
The Basic definition of theft is defined in S.1(1) of the Act.

The Act states that

A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

see the difference

L33_WRX

Taking Without Owners Consent is defined under section 12 of the Theft Act but states it is not actual theft

bugeyeandy

If you knew the answer why did you ask?

top_fuel

iTrader: (1)

speedking

I think I see what you're getting at.

A TWOC where the car was returned undamaged would not be subject to an insurance claim, why would it have to be named on the policy?

If you lent your car to someone and they damaged it would your insurance pay up? Only if they were a named driver.

If a TWOCer damages your car then they are basically uninsured and certainly not covered by your policy.

If TWOCing was covered, then at the first sign of engine trouble, get a mate to rag the car and then claim for the rebuild off of the insurers. Wouldn't work would it?

L33_WRX

Because if you read your insurance policy TWOC is under theft??

SetoN

You have to much time on your hands

For your insurance company to view the case as TWOC im sure they would expect to see a police report of the incident. If the police were not informed then you should 'not' expect to receive any money from your insurance.

SetoN

L33_WRX

Had to read it as police were involved in a TWOC of my car. Turns out if it's a family member OR someone in the same household you are NOT covered

Untitled

no TWOC and Theft are different,

that is that you have to prove that the person taking the car had the intention of permanently depriving the owner of that vehicle, to prove Theft!

otherwise they just run with TWOC

bugeyeandy

Ok, I was a bit harsh before
I see what you mean now. If my brother, for example, took my keys and went out for a blast without asking me that would be considered taking without consent. Can't see how a criminal stealing your car can be considered as anything other than car theft though.
Is your insurance company being difficult about a claim?

Moley

iTrader: (9)

Then you report it as a theft, and you'd have to press charges against your family member for stealing the car.
(I think thats how it works anyway)

Might have something to do with if the person who took the car is on your policy as a named driver.

L33_WRX

insurance company say they will not cover me as the car was taken by a family member and it's now completely totalled

bugeyeandy

Are they saying the keys were too easily accessible?

L33_WRX

Kind of - they have just said i am not covered as family members or household members can access your keys easier. I even asked the scanrio if I had a cousin who broke in to my house and took them would i be covered, the answer was NO!

I was out of the country at the time and if it wasn't for that there would have been no way he could have taken it

bugeyeandy

Good old insurnace companies, happy to take your money but even happier to wriggle out of paying for any excuse.
I think you may need to contact the insurance ombudsman to sort this one out.

If they agree with you then the insurance company is bound by their decision.

Moley

iTrader: (9)

I only know of one company who don't pay out for theft by a family member.

As far as i am aware most companies will pay out, but you'd have to press charges against the person who took the car.

Before people moan about insurance companies trying to get out of paying claims please be aware that the reason this is looked at very carefully by some companies is because of the abuse of the DOC (driving other cars 3rd party).
Too many examples in the past of family members using each others cars covered 3rd party and having an accident. Then because they won't get paid out they claim the car was stolen, therefore trying to get the company to pay out for theft.

L33_WRX

This is my next route, just waiting for them to get back to me once the car has been checked out by there people but it doesn't take an expert to see the car is completely dead. They won't even give me a courtesy car and I have checked in the terms and conditions and they don't have to

L33_WRX

which company is that? because I have been advised by them that this is the same for majority of insurance companies because apparently the risk is greater because family members and other people in your household have easier access to your keys. Even if you had a lodger who stole your car and trashed it you wouldn't be covered - I am absolutely gutted

Moley

iTrader: (9)

Thats sounds very strange. I have spoken to a few guys in our office and they also say that aslong as you press charges most companies should pay out.

Are you going to press charges against the family member?

L33_WRX

the family member is my brother who is not in a good financial situation - he took the car without permission while I was out of the country

Moley

iTrader: (9)

If you are not pressing charges against him it doesn't suprise my that they won't pay out TBH.

And in that case pretty much all insurance companies will look at it in the same way

vindaloo

Reads like a really bad mess to be involved in. Are (were!) you and your brother close?

If there's other people involved or costs to be borne I wouldn't be surprised if the Police throw the book at him anyway.

J.

L33_WRX

if it meant getting the money for my car I would but the insurance company don't care about pressing charges or not, as per the text in my T&C's family members are not covered

L33_WRX

yep - couldn't be more awkward. The police are dealing with him for TWOC and no insurance (he is insured on his own car but not covered on mine)

Moley

iTrader: (9)

I haven't heard of many companies at all who won't pay out if it is taken by a family member and you're willing to press charges for theft against them.

What company are you with? Pm me if you don't want people to know.

L33_WRX

moley.. the problem is that he didn't try to take the car from me perm so it's classed as TWOC.

PM sent

Moley

iTrader: (9)

Pm back

Very difficult position to be in, hope it all gets sorted.

L33_WRX

really appreciate the help