Running a work errand in my car - would I be covered on my car insurance?

phill99

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

The point is that there is a debate here over whether failing to comply with one of the terms in an insurance policy is an offence under the Road Traffic Act or simply a matter between you and the insurance company.

Arguments have been advanced for both points of view, but no amount of slanging Oh yes it is or Oh no it isn't is going to resolve the debate unless someone can produce a link to an authoritative source that addresses this particular point.

Go on to BBC iplayer. Motorway Cops. A lady ran a bakery and had a van. The van broke down and she used her private car to transport some cakes. She ran a red light and was pulled over by the police. As her car didn't have business use on her policy (confirmed by the database) it was classed as no insurance and she had her car seized.

dacouch

phill99 wrote: »

Go on to BBC iplayer. Motorway Cops. A lady ran a bakery and had a van. The van broke down and she used her private car to transport some cakes. She ran a red light and was pulled over by the police. As her car didn't have business use on her policy (confirmed by the database) it was classed as no insurance and she had her car seized.

I've seen the police make some shocking errors regarding Insurance on those types of programs especially on driving other cars or motortrade policies.

Found this link from Kent Police.

http://www.kent.police.uk/about_us/policies/p/p33.html

Note second line of Appendix A

Also 7.2

I think this would mean the person in the example earlier in the thread would get an IN10 but not a seizure.

System

dacouch wrote: »

Found this link from Kent Police.

.

Thank you. That's what I meant - a link to some kind of authoritative organisation which might just possibly be right.

It seems pretty clear that taking the action the OP referred to is risky, but perhaps justifiable in the circumstances. We have all done it:

I took a colleague to hospital casualty for a check-up after a minor work-related accident.
I picked up the van driver from the garage after it had been taken in for repairs.
I often take reports etc home to read.
Teachers usually do a lot of marking at home.

Let's not split hairs. Life has risks, and some are pretty minor and we make judgements, sometimes based on likelihood of getting away with it rather than strict letter of the law compliance.

anniecave

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

....

I took a colleague to hospital casualty for a check-up after a minor work-related accident.
I picked up the van driver from the garage after it had been taken in for repairs.
I often take reports etc home to read.
Teachers usually do a lot of marking at home.

I wouldn't count taking reports home to read as business use. Or taking marking home (but if I was a teacher I'd probably get business use anyway just in case I needed it for some other reason).

Van driver to garage would depend on the circumstances.

Taking a work colleague to hospital is a more interesting one.

Not all employers provide sufficient advice to employees on the subject either. At my previous place of work there was someone who had been doing a lot of business miles for a few months before anyone ever asked him if he'd got business use on his car insurance - and then found out he didn't because he didn't realise he needed to have it!

aeb_2

Just a couple of questions:

If someone has an accident and the police are involved do they ask where you were going and if it was for business or pleasure?

How does the insurance company know if you were out doing a bit of food shopping or out buying food for the work kitty (tea, coffee, milk, sugar, biscuits, etc)

Likewise, if I were to buy the above on my way home from work would that be 'business use'?

PS - I don't go out to work so just curious, thank you

System

anniecave wrote: »

I wouldn't count taking reports home to read as business use.

But an insurance company might.
A colleague of my father's once asked his insurers about this, and was told anything carried in the car relating to work was using the car for business.
He was allowed to use the car solely for travel to and from work, not use otherwise in connection with work.

But that's my point - it's a stupid rule, and everyone breaks it.

lazer

I thought technically it was only counted as business use if either:

The fuel cost was paid or re-imbursed by your employer

or: you are self employed (In which case most people would have business use insurance and offset the expense against tax)

thenudeone

olly300 wrote: »

The police wouldn't know the OP doesn't have business cover

Yes they do. It's on the insurance database that the police access.

olly300 wrote: »

The police .... wouldn't care as they have 3rd party insurance which is all that you are required to have by law.

If the certificate of insurance state that it only covers social domestic and pleasure, then no insurance applies if the car is used for business use. The driver is committing an offence. It's really simple.

There are lots of circumstances where your insurance company may be required to pay out, for example if a car thief crashes your car, the insurers will have to pay out to any third parties; but the car thief is still driving without insurance and would be prosecuted for that.

NO CERTIFICATE COVERING THE DRIVER AND THE VEHICLE'S USE = OFFENCE

thenudeone

lazer wrote: »

I thought technically it was only counted as business use if either:

The fuel cost was paid or re-imbursed by your employer

or: you are self employed (In which case most people would have business use insurance and offset the expense against tax)

Business use means exactly what it says: used for you or your employer's business. Payment or reimbursement doesn't come into it.

For example - A pizza company employs casual drivers to deliver pizzas using their own personal cars. They aren't paid a mileage rate for expenses.

The vehicle is being used for business use, and so the vehicle's own SDP or SDP+C cover will not cover the drivers. Getting business cover including food deliveries would be so expensive for the drivers that it wouldn't be worth it. The pizza chain would be committing an offence if they allowed the drivers to deliver pizzas without insurance.
So the pizza company arranges a block policy providing third party cover for any driver in any vehicle whilst the driver is employed to deliver pizzas.

I know that a large pizza chain has done exactly this.

System

There must be a difference between "having insurance" in the Road Traffic Act sense, and an insurance company declining to pay out some or all of a particular claim.

The certificate and the insurance database might or might include business use, but if the interpretation of business use can only be determined after the event on investigation by the insurance company then I don't see how the policeman on the spot can be in a position to pre-judge the insurerance company's assessment. Especially if no incident has occurred, eg it is a random check for some other reason.

I might have insurance limiting me to 5000 miles pa. If I made a claim the company might investigate and might find I had actually done 5001 miles. They might decide to pay up anyway, or they might decide to reject my claim. But a policeman doing a random insurance check can't ascertain that, so as far as the law is concerned I am insured. Perhaps months later after a long argument the company refuses payment, or agrees only a limited claim. I don't then suddenly, and retrospectively, become guilty of driving without insurance. It is purely a contractual matter between me and the insurance company.