Commuting and Car Insurance?

scottishgirl87

Probably a stupid question but something that came into my mind a few days ago. I have standard Commuting covered on my car insurance (to a fixed place of work, etc.), however, I recently changed jobs and now no longer drive directly to my work. Instead I now drive to my local train station (couple of miles away) and get the train from there so my car sits in their park and ride car park all day.

Just wondering if standard Commuting cover covers this or if I should be informing my insurance company that I'm not actually driving to my fixed place of employment?

timbo58

Interesting Q IMHO.
I loathe the extras the insurance companies add year after year, 'commuting' and 'travel at rush hours' being 2 particulars I state 'NO' to out of principle.
Also becuase I work flexi hours and don't always use the car in any case.

Has an insurance co every refused to pay out if say the driver didn't have 'commuting' or 'rush hour' and had an accident doing the same?
How would they prove it?

InsideInsurance

Never seen Rush Hour listed in anything but tracker based policies.

Yes, have refused claims on the basis of vehicles being used for an undeclared purpose such as commuting or business even though the Ph claimed it was "a one off"

Ultimately you can check with your insurer but I would strongly suspect most would count this as "commuting" rather than SD&P or business class 1

Personally I would always suggest checking the price of Business Class 1 cover as often it is no more expensive than SDPC and covers your butt if you ever do need to drive to another office for some reason etc

scottishgirl87

Thank you, both.

InsideInsurance - I did have Business Cover on my car as my previous employer required it whereas now I don't do any driving for work, whatsoever. Plus, I had to pay extra for it (which wasn't even reimbursed by previous employer) so don't feel I really want to go down that route.

Just confused by the wording as at end of the day I am commuting to a fixed place of employment, just the car now gets me to the train station rather than my office.

InsideInsurance

Hence why I say to check the price for Business, for me it doesnt make any difference, for my ex it added £5 a year so worth it to avoid the pain.

As you say, you are commuting to a fixed place just not all the way. Similar to if your work had no car park and so you were parking a couple of blocks away in the nearest NCP.

Ultimately your insurers can confirm their interpretation is the same as mine.

mikey72

Bussiness use has only ever cost more as a mid term change, and that's only as you're a captive customer.
There may be an issue if you declared the car was parked at your place of work in the day, and now it resides in a public carpark though.

whatmichaelsays

scottishgirl87 wrote: »

Probably a stupid question but something that came into my mind a few days ago. I have standard Commuting covered on my car insurance (to a fixed place of work, etc.), however, I recently changed jobs and now no longer drive directly to my work. Instead I now drive to my local train station (couple of miles away) and get the train from there so my car sits in their park and ride car park all day.

Just wondering if standard Commuting cover covers this or if I should be informing my insurance company that I'm not actually driving to my fixed place of employment?

I've actually seen insurers use definitions that explicity say driving to a rail station as something that falls under the notion of commuting.

Even if you aren't driving directly to your workplace, driving to a rail station is technically still a part of your commute.

adamc260

Driving to the train station requires commuting use =]

forgotmyname

Commuting yes, But with policies i have taken they usually ask where the car will be kept in the daytime.

Non commuting it maybe at home with commuting it will be the town or works carpark or as in your case the train station.

So i would notify them, As the station carpark maybe deemed high risk.

MattLFC

Interesting Q IMHO.
I loathe the extras the insurance companies add year after year, 'commuting' and 'travel at rush hours' being 2 particulars I state 'NO' to out of principle.
Also becuase I work flexi hours and don't always use the car in any case.

Has an insurance co every refused to pay out if say the driver didn't have 'commuting' or 'rush hour' and had an accident doing the same?
How would they prove it?

You'd usually be required to produce an insurance cert to the plod/they can contact the MIB, and if you said you were just on your way to work or had work gear on and appeared to be on your way in (even a statement like "will this take long, im on my way to work"), an eagle-eyed copper could catch you out on it. Then you could be facing a charge of no-insurance, and having your car siezed, if your insurance company didn't decide to be nice (or where shut).

So it's not worth the risk. The plod are cracking down on everything these days with regards insurance (it keeps them from having to deal with domestics and other sorts of crimes where they may have to get their fingers dirty).

If you use the car for commuting, any part of your commute, or indeed any other purpose that is not covered by SD&P, you may as well be honest and let them know, that way you have the peace of mind that you are totally legit.

System

If parking at the railway station is not commuting then it must be social domestic and pleasure? In what way is leaving your car in a car park perhaps 40 miles away from work "business use" ?
Supposing you drove a couple of miles and left your car at a friend's house, who gave you a lift to work - would that be business use? Would it even be commuting?
Supposing your wife dropped you at the station, and then came home, or went on to do shopping. Would that be business use?