Company van excess passed onto employees

davnav

My company is asking all construction employees to sign a form,to say we agree to pay £250 excess on our work van if we damage it crash etc .can this be right.I only pay £100 for my own car.where do i just get the £250 if anything does happen.surely employees shouldn't have to agree to this
Advice needed thanks

sangie595

davnav wrote: »

My company is asking all construction employees to sign a form,to say we agree to pay £250 excess on our work van if we damage it crash etc .can this be right.I only pay £100 for my own car.where do i just get the £250 if anything does happen.surely employees shouldn't have to agree to this
Advice needed thanks

Excesses are often higher on business vehicles because the risk is often higher. And you own excess is what you choose it to be - you can increase the level of the excess if you wish.

No. you don't have to agree to sign. But I can't imagine that you will have a job for much longer if you don't. Assuming the agreement says that you only pay the excess if you are at fault, then it shouldn't be a problem, because you shouldn't be at fault. But in the end, I think you probably want another job. If you won't sign, you won't have a future with this company.

davnav

You state,because you shouldn't be at fault.accidents can happen in which could be my fault.its just the first time in my whole working career ive been asked to agree to something on these lines.no i dont intend to cause any damage to the work van.i just dont understand how im now added to the risk element.£250 just seams steep.company wouldnt pay anything towards my hand tools if they got broke fixing stuff for them.also if you have to be responsible for the excess then should you not be able to use the van in your own time,providing you pay for the fuel.
Thanks for your reply.

sangie595

davnav wrote: »

You state,because you shouldn't be at fault.accidents can happen in which could be my fault.its just the first time in my whole working career ive been asked to agree to something on these lines.no i dont intend to cause any damage to the work van.i just dont understand how im now added to the risk element.£250 just seams steep.company wouldnt pay anything towards my hand tools if they got broke fixing stuff for them.also if you have to be responsible for the excess then should you not be able to use the van in your own time,providing you pay for the fuel.
Thanks for your reply.

I'm sorry but I do not understand your reasoning. Yes, accidents can happen. And if they are your fault that they happen, why do you think the responsibility should be someone else's to pay for?

Hand tools may get broken fixing things. They are your hand tools, and presumably you take care of them because they are yours. If someone else breaks them using them, you would expect the someone else to replace them. The van is your employers, not yours, and they are expecting you to do something about it when you break it when using it. Same principle.

And why should you be able to use the van in personal, non-working time, simply because you have to pay an excess for an accident that would be your fault? You are at liberty to tell the employer that you won't be using the van any more, and will be responsible for providing your own van at your own expense and your own risk.

I understand that you may feel aggrieved about this change, but it is far from uncommon these days, and precisely because people feel that they don't need to be as responsible about driving a works vehicle because any damage if the employers problem, not theirs. You could put in a grievance saying that you feel it is unfair, but you really aren't likely to get very far. Your choice then will be to suck it up or refuse. If you refuse then, as I said, I don't see the employment lasting very much longer - they are not going to let you drive their vans. So you may as well start looking for another job now, but you may struggle to find an employer now who doesn't either have the same term, or expect people to provide their own transport.

PS - I note from previous posts that you are in a union. Yet this is the second time you have come here first before going to the union who you pay for these things. A union is in a better position to try to stop things than you are on your own - although given that this change will affect all employees, I doubt they will be able to do much for you. But wouldn't the union be a better place to start?

bugslet

Our excess is £500.00, which really these days is not much - the slightest bump seems to necessitate replacement panels and ancillery items.

We don't as it happens ask our drivers to pay excess, but we don't ahve too many problems ( touching a whole lot of wood there!). I wonder if your firm has had an increase in damage to vehicles through driver carelessness that has motivated them to find a way to reduce both damage and cost?

TBagpuss

£250 doesn't sounf muuch as excess for a woks van.

As others have said, if this is something new than you have the option of not signing, which may effect whethe the company choses to continue to employ you. Ypu may be able to get them to agree that you would only be liable in the event the the damage was caused by your negligence or fault.

Speak to your union.

The issue is a diferent one to being able to use the van in our own time.

HappyMJ

davnav wrote: »

My company is asking all construction employees to sign a form,to say we agree to pay £250 excess on our work van if we damage it crash etc .can this be right.I only pay £100 for my own car.where do i just get the £250 if anything does happen.surely employees shouldn't have to agree to this
Advice needed thanks

davnav wrote: »

You state,because you shouldn't be at fault.accidents can happen in which could be my fault.its just the first time in my whole working career ive been asked to agree to something on these lines.no i dont intend to cause any damage to the work van.i just dont understand how im now added to the risk element.£250 just seams steep.company wouldnt pay anything towards my hand tools if they got broke fixing stuff for them.also if you have to be responsible for the excess then should you not be able to use the van in your own time,providing you pay for the fuel.
Thanks for your reply.

You can agree or disagree with anything.

If you disagree with paying the excess on the insurance if you're found to be at fault in an accident then you might find you will be out of a job quite soon as someone else will offer their services to the company and take on the risk.

You need to price that risk into what you charge the company for your time.

£250 doesn't seem too steep to me. The risk of a small claim is much higher with a company vehicle. The insurer knows that and charges a much lower premium if the company covers the first £250 of damages. A broken wing mirror might cost £250 to replace that wouldn't go through insurance which keeps the premium much lower.

stugib

sangie595 wrote: »

Assuming the agreement says that you only pay the excess if you are at fault, then it shouldn't be a problem, because you shouldn't be at fault.

The problem I've got with it is that insurance 'fault' (in which an excess is payable) is different from 'fault' to the layman.

If someone was driving carelessly or was negligent then I'd agree with the employee paying the company's excess to get fixed with or without a specific agreement, but accidents do happen, and an excess could be payable even if the driver was nowhere near the vehicle at the time, so I think just a 'payable excess = you pay' is too blunt and unfair.

nearlyrich

My company car policy reserves the right to charge £400 excess it's my 3rd company where I have a company car and the only one to do so, no acceptance of the policy means no company car. If someone has loads of "accidents" the company end up paying a fortune, they don't seem to charge anyone the excess but they could if they wanted to..

Mendry

Company I work for has excess paid by driver built into any car policy. All of our drivers signed it and seem to treat it as standard across any industry these days.

Sato

It is not a bad idea for them to request the signing of the document. They are just trying to instill a certain level cautiousness in those driving the van. Accidents can happen anytime; and when it happens, the person at fault is meant to bear a share of the burden.