Standing up for yourself in the first year.

FBaby

I thought in insurance terms, 'business cover' related to the use of the vehicle for a particular business, not used during work time to go to different places of work.

My cover states 'use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes including commuting to and from a permanent place of work. Use by policyholder in person in connection with his or business or profession. This policy does not cover use for commercial travelling, etc...

DVardysShadow

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Presumably if he were a cyclist they would pay the cost of public transport; that was certainly my situation before I learned to drive.

This is what I would expect - not an assumption that the employees car is available for the employer's business.

k3lvc

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Presumably if he were a cyclist they would pay the cost of public transport; that was certainly my situation before I learned to drive.

Unless of course a driving licence and ownership of a car were a pre-requisite to the role.

The OP is selective with the info given and doesn't want to hear the answers/suggestions given.

On that basis I'm out :rotfl:

Chris_M_3

Reverbe wrote: »

I'm baffled. Your mention of being a blue badge holder indicates some level of disability. As far as I am aware high performance sports cars are not something generally driven by the disabled or less able bodied.

I suppose having a disability means I'm not allowed to have nice things like a sports car...I guess I should only be allowed to drive an invacar. Google it if you don't know what that is.

Never mind that I bought the sports car *before* my industrial accident, which left me with a disability.
Never mind that when I was learning to walk again, getting back into my sports car was an incentive to push myself harder in my physio sessions.

As for some of the other nasty, sniping comments, I won't stoop to their levels by responding but it wasn't just me who refused to use their own vehicles.

Now I guess I'd better skulk back to the disabled forum....where I belong according to some people.

Jarndyce

Chris_M wrote: »

Now I guess I'd better skulk back to the disabled forum....where I belong according to some people.

Nobody has said that and if you have read that into some comments (apart from Reverbe's which were just plain ignorant) then you have missed (either deliberately or otherwise) the sound advice that you have been given.

Having a disability does not entitle you to dictate how an employer runs their business. You have some rights, sure, and those of us with some knowledge of the law have advised you honestly about what those rights are.

But petulantly refusing to get into someone else's car because they are not insured for business purposes is, quite frankly, childish and pathetic, and has nothing to do with your disability. Fine, ignore our advice if you wish, and go back to your 'disabled forum' (not a phrase I would use but there you go) - where you will no doubt get a sympathetic hearing but I would wager not an entirely objective one - but our advice was given in good faith and was well intentioned. Good luck.

scheming_gypsy

Chris_M wrote: »

Because that would mean being a passenger in a vehicle that is effectively not insured for that journey and I'm not putting myself at risk by travelling in an uninsured car.
.

and you actually believe that being insured is a big special bubble that makes people more competent drivers and that you'd be at less risk of an accident if they were insured for business use?
Can't you put business use on your unicorn insurance and have him fly you there? because anybody who honestly believes that you're "putting yourself at risk by travelling in an uninsured car"; must live on a planet with unicorns and pixies.



and why not just hire a car for about £12 a day and claim 45p a mile back. You get to drive there 'legally' and make a nice little sum on the mileage.

eamon

Over on the motoring board there are many examples of people being brought to book for having incorrect insurance for the journey that they were undertaking. The OP's case re the insurance issue is not that unusual. My friends employer has to fork out for hire cars/taxis etc everytime she has to be somewhere other than her normal workplace. Anyway why should an employee be expected to subsidise their employer. He is also right to question if colleagues have business insurance if car sharing is the chosen method. I've refused to accept lifts in the past and would do so again. I agree with Jarndyce re the car parking there is little to be gained by kicking up a fuss, negotiation is a better way forward.

scheming_gypsy

eamon wrote: »

. He is also right to question if colleagues have business insurance if car sharing is the chosen method..

but if it doesn't have business insurance, he's no more at risk than if it does have business insurance. If he's not driving the car it doesn't effect him, if anything happened he'd be making a third party claim on the drivers insurance. It'd only affect the driver, so why the fuss about being a passenger?

Lovelyjoolz

Many of the employees in my company use their personal cars for business use and have sensibly aded 'Business Use' to their insurance policies. The cost of this averaged out at around £30 per year. The youngest driver (26) paid the most and that was £35. Hardly going to break the bank eh?

Anyway, OP is probably already insured ayway. Business Use as defined by the insurance industry (facts checked with Broker and with my OH who works in insurance) really referes to using the car rather like a sales rep, i.e. driving it around all day, visiting various places, rarely the same place in one week. My employees visit building sites and customer offices, and fall into this category.

I, however, go to the bank for the business a couple of times a week. I nip out and stock up on tea and coffee for the business regularly too. This does not count as 'Business Use', rather its covered under the Use by policyholder in person in connection with his or business or profession clause which ALL policies have if they are for SDP&Communting. This would cover a training course at a diferrent location because that is effecitvely your one place of work for the duration of the course. The numpty at your insurer was talking out of their !!!!!.

Sounds to me like the OP doesn't want to go on the course and is dressing up his lame excuses as a reason not to go. There have been a multitue of excellent suggestions posted, and he's rejected everyone. If that is what he is like in general as an employee I'd sack him quick before he reached 12 mths service.

As for the disabled space issue, here's a novel idea - have you tried SPEAKING to your colleagues and politely asking them to leave you room? At least then, when they ignored your request, you'd know for certain that they were just trying to pi$$ you off.

redandyellow

Hi Chris M
You say you have a Blue Badge and that you have been nagging your employer for a disabled parking bay. This suggests to me that you have a disability and your employers are aware that you have a disability.
If this is the case then the 12 month rule does not apply re dismissal because you have a "protected characteristic" (Equality Act etc) and the reason for your grievance is a failure to provide a "reasonable adjustment"