Refused insurance due to p/t job!

dacouch

enfield_freddy wrote: »

yup , explain 42 pizzas in the car , and being seen stopping and receiving money from 4 or 5 places

Sounds like a delivery around my estate

RS2000.

dacouch wrote: »

This is one of my favourite threads on Pepipoo, they have a forum policy of only offering advice and not posting judgemental opinions.

Make your mind up on this guys predicament...

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=96187

How would you explain away the evidence the police have irrespective of whether you were guilty or innocent.

What's that got to do with the point you made?

The police stop the OPs son, he's covered for buisness use by the take awayshop, how or why would they ever find out he omitted to tell his own insurance he was delivering?

enfield_freddy

possibly by the information on the MIB database , and a call to them would reveal the insurer , who they can ring up.


and they will state "not for delivering takeaways"

RS2000.

enfield_freddy wrote: »

possibly by the information on the MIB database , and a call to them would reveal the insurer , who they can ring up.


and they will state "not for delivering takeaways"

He's covered for that on the shops policy, plus the MIB would be shut un the evening.

They'd have no need to check his personal policy at that's not the one in force for the deliveries.

enfield_freddy

ok , go your way , however is each and every driver actually driving around with a cover note from the TP insurance (stating the user AND the reg number?), I thought we agreed that 2 policies could not be in force on one vehicle ?

RS2000.

enfield_freddy wrote: »

ok , go your way , however is each and every driver actually driving around with a cover note from the TP insurance (stating the user AND the reg number?), I thought we agreed that 2 policies could not be in force on one vehicle ?

The shop will have a certificate not the drivers. After about 6pm the MIB is shut anyway so if they can't produce or the police won't make contact with the shop it's back to the old HO/RT1.

I said earlier it's quite common for takeaways to cover business use for their drivers, so yes there can be two policies on one car.

enfield_freddy

I disagree , there cannot be two policies running on a single vehicle , and if one policy catagoricly states "no takeaway driving" , this cannot help.


yes the OPs son , armed with a certificate stating his full name and reg No could "blag" a local cop with a broken radio , however as you state the MID might be closed at night , it will (database) show the Insurance co that the reg number has used.

RS2000.

enfield_freddy wrote: »

I disagree , there cannot be two policies running on a single vehicle , and if one policy catagoricly states "no takeaway driving" , this cannot help.


yes the OPs son , armed with a certificate stating his full name and reg No could "blag" a local cop with a broken radio , however as you state the MID might be closed at night , it will (database) show the Insurance co that the reg number has used.

The show us the legislation that prevents it.

He doesn't have to blag it as given this hypothetical situation any seizure wouldn't be lawful, he would be fully covered for the use of the vehicle at that given time.

Unless of course you claim he's been driving without insurance throughout the time he's worked there.

colino

Imagine that, someone getting paid to deliver things, for a fast-food outlet no less, and the insurance company, despite the higher actuarial risk of him being involved in a claim wanting to decline the business or put up the premium. I blame the tories, etc.

Gloomendoom

enfield_freddy wrote: »

I disagree , there cannot be two policies running on a single vehicle , and if one policy catagoricly states "no takeaway driving" , this cannot help.

Maybe not a vehicle, but the driver in the same way that driving other car benefits works.

I used to work for a big multi-national company that provided insurance cover for its employees to use their own cars for company business.