business use? Surely not!

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

DUTR wrote: »

Business use adds little or nothing unless your business is delivering pizza etc.

More specifically, it depends on your job title, some jobs attract high premiums (such as publican!). It should be fairly obvious as to whether particular jobs might have acquired a reputation for poor driving.

General admin jobs don't make much difference, even on young drivers (daughter is a trainee accountant and I don't think the business use made any significant difference there).

facade

In The Olden Days, business use was for people who drove for a living.

All I used to have was Social, Domestic & Pleasure, as driving to & from work was obviously "Domestic" as it was to do with running your household. I used to arrange my insurance with "The Co-Op Man" who came round every Friday to collect the various premiums, he knew what I used the car for and sorted the correct cover.

Then it became S,D.P & commuting , and then later S,D,P & commuting to one single regular place of employment.
Going on a course, nipping out to a shop, running a mate over to casualty, taking any paperwork home to finish off, all now required business use, so I've always had it.

=rizla=

twohooter wrote: »

I really don't think this is good advice and certainly not something I would do. Dishonest and risky - never worth it! But each to their own I guess...

You are right of course, I was being a little flippant, as has been said often doing it properly doesn't add any more, I know it hasn't added any to my policy, although the first year I added it they did sting me with a £30 admin fee for changing mid year.

Car_54

"Commuter" (and hence "commuting") is a fairly recent term used by the railways to describe those whom they previously called "season ticket holders", i.e. someone who goes daily to a fixed place of work.

If you go from workplace A to workplace B it isn't commuting, nor is it social, domestic, or pleasure. So it's business.

dacouch

ChumLee wrote: »

The MIB wouldn't pay in such circumstances. The op's own insurance would cover third party risks.

The vehicle has no liability under the RTA if the vehicle is not being used for the use it's covered for.

facade

The insurer has a legal obligation to pay 3rd party claims.
However, if the vehicle is used outside the terms of the policy, they can (and likely will) recover their losses from the policy holder.

Happened to a colleague, he had to repay the insurance payout for the wall that was knocked down when his offspring "lent" her car to a mate.

astreet3

Car_54 wrote: »

"Commuter" (and hence "commuting") is a fairly recent term used by the railways to describe those whom they previously called "season ticket holders", i.e. someone who goes daily to a fixed place of work.

If you go from workplace A to workplace B it isn't commuting, nor is it social, domestic, or pleasure. So it's business.

Ok, so just playing devils advocate here...

If I work at site A everyday but once a quarter work at site B then that is still commuting isn't it? Not business use as not travelling between sites only home and one single place of work (for that day at least!).

:-)

=rizla=

I think you may well be on dodgy ground, I've heard of one large employer who had the police and ANPR cameras at the entrance, with a few being prosecuted for not having commuting on their policies. I think i'd mention to your insurance company that if they do charge you extra premium then you wont be renewing next year, you may get a 'goodwill' freebie from them, or like mine they may not care and charge you anyway.

Sally_A

This is where you need to play smart and negotiate upfront with your company, say a 100 mile round trip takes 2 hours travelling, plus 45p a mile petrol =£45 fuel. Plus £50 to upgrade from SDP/Commute to Class 1 business travel.

A train/bus/taxi ride may easily cost £120 and take 5 hours.

A decent employer will pay for the upgrade to Class 1.

On the other hand, I only get 28p a mile, but do get a few hundred quid pre tax allowance per month for car usage/insurance/maintenance etc.

dacouch

facade wrote: »

The insurer has a legal obligation to pay 3rd party claims.
However, if the vehicle is used outside the terms of the policy, they can (and likely will) recover their losses from the policy holder.

Happened to a colleague, he had to repay the insurance payout for the wall that was knocked down when his offspring "lent" her car to a mate.

Not having the correct use for the vehicle is different

The Insurer has no legal obligation to pay a claim that is not covered by the use of the vehicle. It's not contractually obligated and the RTA gives the Insurer an exemption so they're not liable under statute.

The driver is defined as uninsured and the claim falls to the MIB under the Uninsured Drivers Agreement. The Insurer of the vehicle will become an Article 75 Insurer due to their Articles of Association of MIB which UK Insurers are duty bound to abide by.

The vehicle Insurer will pay the claim but not under the RTA or due to the contract which allows them some lea way on paying the claim.

The RTA gives a specific provision for an Insurer to recover their outlay in a claim (That they're required to pay due to the law) from the driver or their policyholder. Most Policy wordings also allow Insurers to recover their outlay from their client in these circumstances.