Motoring Law question.

Orionaut

Orionaut

Orionaut

Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
Consider the following hypothetical scenario.

Patrick parks his car on the road outside his home. He does not have a garage or other off road parking available.

His brake master cylinder has failed meaning that the car has no brakes (IE Un-roadworthy)

It will be a week or so before he can arrange repairs.

Questions.

#1 Is he committing any form of offence by leaving the car outside his home despite the fact that he has no intention of using it?

#2 Along with #1 above, Are there any insurance implications?

Now, to make things more complicated, Late one evening "Ratboy" jemmies his way into the car and TWOK's it.

As one might expect, he is almost immediately involved in a serious collision with another vehicle writing off both vehicles and severely injuring the occupants of both.

Question...

#3 Might Patrick face any criminal or civil liabilities resulting from the crash? (IE does Ratboy have a reasonable expectation of roadworthiness for any car that he might TWOK?)

(#3 might seem a bit of an odd question BUT, the Law can be very counter-intuitive at times)
 
I believe it is only an offence to drive a vehicle in an un-roadworthy condition not to park one on the street and I would be very surprised if said thieving git had any right to expect a roadworthy car.

If it was me I'd keep quiet and hope nobody ever mentions it!
 
So long as the vehicle is taxed it is allowed to be left on the road regardless of its state of repair. The other legal implications are way out of my realm. For example about 10 years ago I had an accident that involved a motorcycle. I was put under arrest on the spot and questioned, later to be informed that no action would be taken against me as the other driver had no tax or insurance or in fact legal right to be in the country.

Legally I was OK however a civil case was opened against me which took about 5 years to resolve and I lost costing my insurance company tens of thousands. Legally you are fine, from a civil point of view who knows.

Edit: just to add that the bike side swiped me at about 90mph in a 30 zone.
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
I believe it is only an offence to drive a vehicle in an un-roadworthy condition not to park one on the street and I would be very surprised if said thieving git had any right to expect a roadworthy car.

If it was me I'd keep quiet and hope nobody ever mentions it!
Click to expand...

Thing is, as I said, Law is not always intuitive.

EG AIUI, if "Michael O'Reilly", thieving Gypsy *******, trespasses onto my land with the intention of robbing me and falls through the rotten plywood cover for my septic tank and as a consequence drowns slowly in my **** (Far too good a death for a thieving Gypsy ******* I might add).

Then, My understanding is that I might actually get in trouble over that!

(Ridiculous I know, but Lawyers are gonno Lawyer! :mad: )
 
Vince said:
Taken without owner concent... Police term for little scrote stole it.
Click to expand...


The vehicle hasn't been stolen, which is why the specific offence. In order to steal something within the legal meaning you must have "intent to permanently deprive the owner of it". The people who steal cars to joyride do not, so it isn't theft.
 
Meridian said:
The vehicle hasn't been stolen, which is why the specific offence. In order to steal something within the legal meaning you must have "intent to permanently deprive the owner of it". The people who steal cars to joyride do not, so it isn't theft.
Click to expand...

When the little ***** park up after having had their fun and burn it out, I would guess that this does qualify as theft then.
 
Meridian said:
The vehicle hasn't been stolen, which is why the specific offence. In order to steal something within the legal meaning you must have "intent to permanently deprive the owner of it". The people who steal cars to joyride do not, so it isn't theft.
Click to expand...

Sneaky! I would have thought that if somebody takes something of mine without my consent, regardless of the reason, then it's been stolen. I couldn't care what they plan on doing with it. I guess though in the eyes of the law that none of this matters. Clearly they would still be classified as scrotes, that bit was right!
 
In my view, there is nothing that Patrick could be liable for. He certainly is not liable in criminal law for not having a roadworthy vehicle so that a car thief could steal it in safety!! :p

I can't see any civil liability at all either. Patrick hasn't been wilfully or carelessly negligent in his actions so there would be no case to answer. Had Patrick got fed up of the high number of car thefts in the area so gone out and bought a cheap car, put it into a dangerous condition then deliberately left it obviously unlocked and with the key in the ignition in the hope someone would steal it and be injured, then yes, there would be both criminal and civil cases.
 
Last edited:
If a tealeaf twocked my car and it was found with door damage and ignition damage, the insurance would be expected to pay for repairs under a theft claim.

So doesn't that mean joyriding is theft?
 
Orionaut said:
When the little ***** park up after having had their fun and burn it out, I would guess that this does qualify as theft then.
Click to expand...

Very few cars are burnt out these days. But yes, I would assume that if the thieves torched the car it would count as theft. But only if the court could prove that whoever took it was the same person who torched it. The law doesn't care if you like it, it's The Law.
 
Meridian said:
Very few cars are burnt out these days. But yes, I would assume that if the thieves torched the car it would count as theft. But only if the court could prove that whoever took it was the same person who torched it. The law doesn't care if you like it, it's The Law.
Click to expand...

maxresdefault.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom