Refused insurance due to p/t job!

arcon5

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.

So you keep spouting- despite it being a load of rubbish.

Ignore this op.

rev_henry

I'm guessing he works for Dominos or maybe Pizza Hut. I wouldn't trust anyone delivering for an independent takeaway to have the correct insurance.

This seems a bizarre situation, I thought it was normal for the above companies to have their own policy which had nothing to do with the driver's normal personal policy. Surely if they're delivering they're considered 'on cover' by the pizza company's policy and it has nothing to do with the personal policy?

SnowWhiterThanWhite

rev_henry wrote: »

I'm guessing he works for Dominos or maybe Pizza Hut. I wouldn't trust anyone delivering for an independent takeaway to have the correct insurance.

This seems a bizarre situation, I thought it was normal for the above companies to have their own policy which had nothing to do with the driver's normal personal policy. Surely if they're delivering they're considered 'on cover' by the pizza company's policy and it has nothing to do with the personal policy?

exactly! However, you are supposed to inform yr insurance Co. If/when you change jobs, there leith the problem

ToriP

my friend delivered pizzas using his own car while we were at university. The police pulled him over and I think he was fined and got some points? The policeman said it was fairly common that students didn't inform the insurance company that they did a few hours delivering.

Not to save the premium, just because the thought hadn't entered their head as mummy and daddy paid most of the premiums.

patman99

If he was working for Dominos then they would have had his vehicle inspected to make sure it was fit and proper (a bit like an MOT).

I used to work for a HVAC manufacturer and they had a policy that covered any vehicle being used for company business as long as the vehicle was either owned by the company or by the employee driving it.

Anyway, I renewed my insurance with Direct Line and as I did it online, they gave me business use cover as well (this is not included if you purchase via a broker, or via phone), so it might be worth the op's son using Direct Line (via Top Cash Back for £50 back).

RS2000.

patman99 wrote: »

If he was working for Dominos then they would have had his vehicle inspected to make sure it was fit and proper (a bit like an MOT).

I used to work for a HVAC manufacturer and they had a policy that covered any vehicle being used for company business as long as the vehicle was either owned by the company or by the employee driving it.

Anyway, I renewed my insurance with Direct Line and as I did it online, they gave me business use cover as well (this is not included if you purchase via a broker, or via phone), so it might be worth the op's son using Direct Line (via Top Cash Back for £50 back).

The struggle with mixed peppers so I wouldn't trust them to inspect a car.

rs65

patman99 wrote: »

Anyway, I renewed my insurance with Direct Line and as I did it online, they gave me business use cover as well (this is not included if you purchase via a broker, or via phone), so it might be worth the op's son using Direct Line (via Top Cash Back for £50 back).

Do they sell via brokers?

Will it include fast food delivery?

dacouch

rev_henry wrote: »

I'm guessing he works for Dominos or maybe Pizza Hut. I wouldn't trust anyone delivering for an independent takeaway to have the correct insurance.

This seems a bizarre situation, I thought it was normal for the above companies to have their own policy which had nothing to do with the driver's normal personal policy. Surely if they're delivering they're considered 'on cover' by the pizza company's policy and it has nothing to do with the personal policy?

The problem for the original insurer of the vehicle is as far as the Road Traffic Act is concerned is that they're the insurer of the vehicle. They have issued a Certificate specifying the reg which if there's an accident the other Insurer or solicitor will search the reg and find the original insurer and claim from them.

If their client did not inform them of their new job they will end up paying the claim.

There's also the potential for the Dominoes (Or whoever) Policy to be cancelled perhaps due to some admin mistake or the company going insolvent. Which means the original Insurer of the vehicle ends up paying the claim.

If you also factor in pizza etc drivers are very high risk to an insurer in terms of accidents and thefts of vehicle. There may be a policy covering third party liabilities but the original insurer can end up paying the own damage in an accident or theft claim. The Insurer views the type of customer who with holds information as more likely to with hold other information and / fraudulent claims. So if the driver has an accident and writes his car off while delivering pizzas or has it stolen, there's a strong chance they'll lie to the insurer about the circumstances of the incident to get the claim paid.

For all these reasons, most Insurers would rather not get involved in fast food delivery drivers so would decline cover or want to come off cover if a change mid term

facade

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.

There can be two or more policies running on a vehicle. In the event that both would be liable to pay out, they would split the payout, as the policyholder cannot profit from multiple policies, as that would be fraud.

2 examples, both perectly legal & above board.

I lend my car to my brother for a month or so, he is not covered by my insurance.
He can take out a policy on my car (if he can get one, as he isn't the keeper) to cover his use. If he crashes it, his policy pays out, mine doesn't.

My insurance does not cover me for "trials & racing" I take out additional cover for an organised event. My insurance does not cover my use, but the additional policy does.


I don't see why the OP has had insurance cancelled. The insurance states that it does not cover business use, so they would not be liable whilst delivering, except to third parties, (and then they make recovery from the driver) the shop has provided third party cover whilst delivering.

I suppose they think that any bump whilst delivering would be claimed to have happened under SDP&C (which would be fraud) but they can't be bothered investigating.

As far as I can see the OP has not breached the terms of his contract, as he does not require cover whilst delivering.

Edwood_Woodwood

This old chestnut.

The issue here is "driving for profit."

Specific insurance is needed to drive for profit and this is commonly known as "Hire and Reward" insurance, the type taxi drivers and couriers have to have.

The lad is doing no different to what a courier is doing, ie, delivering goods for cash (profit, the "reward.")

Various business insurances are nothing to do with delivering goods and getting paid for doing that.

Business insurance is meant for one's own business needs, ie, like a plumber carrying his own tools for his own purposes.

There is always some delivery driver up before the beak with inadequate insurance somewhere in the country having been caught by some beady eyed copper.

The reason why pizza delivery drivers rarely, if ever, have the correct insurance is due to the cost. For a young lad 4 or 5 grand would be about the going rate, even if they did manage to find an insurer in the first place.

As they earn a pittance it makes no sense, but they still do the job regardless.