Motor car stolen and crashed?

A friend bought a car for his wife. In order to take the kids to school. He had it booked for the NCT next week and was insuring the car and taxing the car. So everything was in order for school in September. He purchased the car for 2500 euro.

However, The babysitter had her 3 friends over and went into his wifes bedroom and took the keys of the car from her handbag. They took the car out and crashed the car. So basically stole the car.


The cost of the damage of repairs to the car is more then its value. So it is a write off. The guards have been informed and are now looking into the issue. However the car was not insured. The babysitter and friends are over 18. Can anybody advice on a civil action case against the babysitter an her friends.

My first point is: why on earth was the babysitter allowed three friends over, recipe for disaster...the responsibility of children should be the first priority. Many let a boyfriend/friend over.

However I do feel for the family as i read alot childminding forums and the things Iv read you hate anyone in your house.

How over 18 is the person in question and which of "they" was actually driving when the vehicle crashed. Is the driver working? Have the parents being approached and what was their tone towards the incident.

Firstly, the culpable driver is at fault. Secondly, the owner of the car is also liable under the road traffic acts.

If babysitter is in the wrong, then he/she has a problem in that being uninsured, they will have to repay the MIBI any monies paid out. Secondly the owner of the car has a problem, in that they owned the car. Why did they not have the car insured? How was car driven to owners house - was it driven by owner or by seller?

Any Third Party will sue both driver and owner. Therefore either owner will agree to pay the claim from their own funds (if liable) or they will require protection of MIBI. If they seek protection from MIBI, MIBI will be entitled to recover any payments made from owner. This may include putting a judgement mortgage on any property owned by owner.

Not a nice position to be in, from owners point of view. Perhaps they should be waiting for their solicitor to open office on Tuesday morning!!

Thanks for the replies. The car was taken to the property by the seller for the owner when purchased. It was bought at a discounted rate as it needed nct and some minor repairs. Repairs had been done by mechanic and car was booked for nct. The purpose of the car was for the mother doing the child runs. Insurance quote was recieved and car was been insured from the 1st of september.

The car was not involved in any major accident. It was crashed into a public wall. The car is a write off. However the wall is fine.

The guards took the finger prints and have cctv evidence. (however at present , they have not confirmed if they can identify who was in the car).

The babysitter who is a blood relation. The babysitter is adamant she was not in the car and will not divulge on her friends. Her parents say they believe her and as she did not take the car , they feel she is not responsible. These kids need a lesson thought to them. Charges will be pressed. However I think they should also be financially held responsible.

I am seeking advice on Civil action for my friend and I would appreciate your replies. These kids all have a small income either from pt work or welfare.

are you trying to sue the driver of the car?
You will have to identify the driver - who else can you sue?

However, I think you are not seeing the bigger picture - I'd be far more worried about the passengers suing the owner, rather than the owner suing the driver.

I thought the penalty was upto 2 years imprisonment or a fine or both for been a passenger in a stolen car. Guards will indentify driver from cctv and finger prints. Why would the owner be worried, when owner did not give concent. The car was stolen

I can't see how the owner could be remotely liable if the vehicle is taken without consent.

How was the car going to do the NCT if there was no insurance in place? You state NCT next week and insurance planned for 1 September.

open insurance policy owned by the mothers husband. he can drive any car under his policy. this is how car was driven to garage for repairs. car was ready to pass nct. the car was been left of the road till sept. so the tax did not need to be paid till sept.

If the car was on the road to go to the garage for repairs it should have been taxed.

Something fishy about the whole arrangement it seems to me.

In any event, getting money out of the people who wrote the car off will prove difficult it would seem to me and possibly costly.

Is it perfectly acceptable to have a car not taxed and insured until 1st September when it will be used? - yes I think so.

Why should the focus turn to those who owned the car rather than the pups who actually robbed and then crashed the car. And the parents of the babysitter won't make her say who was actually in the car.

If its the owner at fault and liable here rather than the joyriders there is something seriously wrong with the system.

There are at least two charges the Gardai will want to discuss with all involved: unauthorised taking, and driving without insurance. Both come with the definite possibility of prison sentences. On a fair day in court, someone with no previous convictions would stand a good chance of a fine and suspended sentence. However, the Gardai will likely be very keen on getting a message across, and will emphasise the downsides of a criminal conviction, especially to a young person (i.e no travel to America etc etc). I would also imagine they will extend the possibility of it all going away, so long as those responsible own up without reservation, and make good all the damage, to the express satisfaction of any injured parties.

peno said:

Is it perfectly acceptable to have a car not taxed and insured until 1st September when it will be used? - yes I think so.

Click to expand...

It is as long as you have properly declared it "off the road".

Extract from the Department of Environment, Community & Local Government website:

Q14. I’ve just bought a vehicle – how can I make a declaration that I intend to keep it off the road for a while?

A14. If you have just bought a new vehicle or just acquired a second hand one and do not intend to use it immediately, you will have ten days from the date of purchase (as specified in the registration document or the notification of transfer of vehicle ownership) to furnish a declaration of non-use. In that case, the declaration will commence from the first day of the month in which the sale takes place, or the first day of the month of registration in the case of new vehicles.
Make sure you notify the seller that you are intending to declare the vehicle off the road and that you need him or her to ensure that the change of ownership is notified to the National Vehicle and Driver File as soon as possible.

stress pains said:

open insurance policy owned by the mothers husband. he can drive any car under his policy.

Click to expand...

Most open drive policies don't cover a car owned by yourself or your spouse.
They might want to check. (Not that I think it's a big issue here).

peno said:

Is it perfectly acceptable to have a car not taxed and insured until 1st September when it will be used? - yes I think so.

Why should the focus turn to those who owned the car rather than the pups who actually robbed and then crashed the car. And the parents of the babysitter won't make her say who was actually in the car.

If its the owner at fault and liable here rather than the joyriders there is something seriously wrong with the system.

Click to expand...

The reason I pointed it out is that the OP may get more than they wish for if they go down the legal route if the car has been used whilst not taxed.

Dear God Almighty!!

What is it with people, arguing whether the car was taxed or not when it was driven to the garage for its pre NCT repairs ?? Big deal.

The bigger issue here is that scumbags robbed and crashed it, causing it to be written off, thus depriving the owner of a car.

What bloody difference does it make that it may have been driven before without road tax being up to date??

Beggers belief, DOH!

SparkRite said:

What bloody difference does it make that it may have been driven before without road tax being up to date??

Click to expand...

It matters because the OP's friend is now in the situation where they have to take a blood relation to court over a serious offence which may have long term consequences for their future.

It's clear that the babysitters parents are not willing to admit that their daughter was in the wrong and it's likely they will defend her at all cost to their relation to the OP's friend.

Therefore they are also likely to try and put the blame back on the Op's friend by dragging up any wrong doing that the OP's friend carried out for example not declaring the car off the road, leaving the keys at home with the babysitter etc.

The worst that can happen about the tax is that there'll be a couple of months of arrears due. Leaving keys at home is neither illegal nor unusual. I think these are all red herrings. The OP should certainly pursue the case.

Guns N Roses said:

It matters because the OP's friend is now in the situation where they have to take a blood relation to court over a serious offence which may have long term consequences for their future.

It's clear that the babysitters parents are not willing to admit that their daughter was in the wrong and it's likely they will defend her at all cost to their relation to the OP's friend.

Therefore they are also likely to try and put the blame back on the Op's friend by dragging up any wrong doing that the OP's friend carried out for example not declaring the car off the road, leaving the keys at home with the babysitter etc.

Click to expand...

Absolute and utter rubbish !!

As regards the theft and writing off of the car, it matters not one iota whether the car was previously driven, by anybody, without an up to date road tax.

Somewhat clutching at straws, methinks, with your terminology "leaving the keys at home with the babysitter".
Sure, the keys were left at home, as anybody would, but I doubt if they were "LEFT WITH" the babysitter.

SparkRite said:

Absolute and utter rubbish !!

Click to expand...

Lol! I'd love to see you say that in front of a judge.

SparkRite said:

Somewhat clutching at straws, methinks, with your terminology "leaving the keys at home with the babysitter".
Sure, the keys were left at home, as anybody would, but I doubt if they were "LEFT WITH" the babysitter.

Click to expand...

In all seriousness, I'm not suggesting that these excuses are any valid defence for what is a very serious offence. I'm only trying to highlight that the babysitter, her parents, the babysitters friends and their parents will all turn on each other and come up with a number of "utter rubbish" excuses to get off. The OP's friend should most definitely pursue the case however they should realise that any relationship with the babysitters family is now most likely at an end.