Car insurance and medical conditions

BooJewels

Quentin wrote: »

You would need to know the wording of the insurance contract to get a definitive answer to your question.

Indeed, but that's not something we're ever going to find out. There's certainly nothing in the published policy docs that covers it.

Your husband could push this himself by speaking to his employer and asking what's behind all this! (And why his cover has been suspended)

We don't actually believe it probably has been - but if you're told you're not covered and not to drive, you'd be foolish not to heed that. We think we know what is behind it, but it's not appropriate to post here.

Though there will be some mention of his responsibilities as a company car driver in his employment contract/company car driver handbook etc.

Indeed, but it's all very vague and there's nothing that covers this scenario - illness and vehicles aren't mentioned together at all. I think it's perhaps that oversight that is most pertinent.

Is the car a perk or is it needed for him to do his job,?

Both. It's required for his job, but it's part of his salary package.
He's contractually allowed to use it for personal use and is taxed accordingly and pays his own private mileage. The legal advice we had a few weeks ago was that he had to be financially recompensed for the 'value' of the car to him if they take it off him and there's a recognised formula that accountants use to come to a figure.

happyandcontented

BooJewels wrote: »

Indeed, but that's not something we're ever going to find out. There's certainly nothing in the published policy docs that covers it.


We don't actually believe it probably has been - but if you're told you're not covered and not to drive, you'd be foolish not to heed that. We think we know what is behind it, but it's not appropriate to post here.


Indeed, but it's all very vague and there's nothing that covers this scenario - illness and vehicles aren't mentioned together at all. I think it's perhaps that oversight that is most pertinent.


Both. It's required for his job, but it's part of his salary package.
He's contractually allowed to use it for personal use and is taxed accordingly and pays his own private mileage. The legal advice we had a few weeks ago was that he had to be financially recompensed for the 'value' of the car to him if they take it off him and there's a recognised formula that accountants use to come to a figure.

Yes, there is, that is what allows someone to work out f they will be better off with a company vehicle or the uplift in salary.

This may be part of a wider scenario to phase out company cars and pay the salary uplift across the board, and he is just being caught in the first phase. I have known that with quite a few companies due to the punitive lease clauses, it is simpler, requires less admin and is often cheaper in the long run to just increase the salary of those who had a contractual agreement to have a car.

BooJewels

happyandcontented wrote: »

This may be part of a wider scenario to phase out company cars and pay the salary uplift across the board, and he is just being caught in the first phase. I have known that with quite a few companies due to the punitive lease clauses, it is simpler, requires less admin and is often cheaper in the long run to just increase the salary of those who had a contractual agreement to have a car.

I wish the reasoning was that honourable. I know that it isn't. If it were, they would have done it a few months ago when they leased him a brand new car. There aren't enough of them in this situation (lots of other vehicles, on a different basis) for there even to be 'phases'.

happyandcontented

BooJewels wrote: »

I wish the reasoning was that honourable. I know that it isn't. If it were, they would have done it a few months ago when they leased him a brand new car. There aren't enough of them in this situation (lots of other vehicles, on a different basis) for there even to be 'phases'.

You could just call their bluff and say that all this angst doesn't seem worth it, so you would rather they uplift his salary to cover the car. Get the formula and ask for X amount. Then just lease your own. It will concentrate their minds wonderfully!

BooJewels

happyandcontented wrote: »

You could just call their bluff and say that all this angst doesn't seem worth it, so you would rather they uplift his salary to cover the car. Get the formula and ask for X amount. Then just lease your own. It will concentrate their minds wonderfully!

We already tried that unsuccessfully some weeks ago. The idea of parting with more hard cash when they're already paying for the car was even less attractive. That was a week or so before the DVLA and insurance company were contacted.

I think one of his big concerns is being refused this insurance - and the future consequences and implications of that.

happyandcontented

Are you suggesting they have an agenda? If so, I think that legal advice is the way to go.

BooJewels

happyandcontented wrote: »

Are you suggesting they have an agenda? If so, I think that legal advice is the way to go.

Yes, I am. We already took legal advice during phase 1 of this situation and that is why we still have the car at all. We thought it was resolved and were surprised to find us entering phase 2 of the same thing. The employment side of it is a can of worms and will need legal support, which we're prepped for tomorrow, it only fully surfaced after close of business on Friday - in itself, pertinent.

My reason for posting here was to see if anyone knew enough about motor insurance to know what rights the insurer have to insist on regular medical reports on a medical condition that wouldn't otherwise be reportable. And what the implications for him long term might be if they refuse to accept this medical letter.

There won't be much value in an uplift in salary to lease his own car (I don't believe the potential funds would even cover this) if he can't secure insurance on it on medical grounds.

Quentin

So from your latest posts there's no doubt that this is an employment issue.

Irrespective of the insurance issue you have been told that he isn't covered by the employer to drive

You do need specialist legal advice on the actions of the Employer, and no amount of insurance advice is going to be of any assistance to him being allowed to drive the company car!

BooJewels

Quentin wrote: »

So from your latest posts there's no doubt that this is an employment issue.

Irrespective of the insurance issue you have been told that he isn't covered by the employer to drive

I did say in my very first sentence that it was a complex issue that I wanted to ask about a specific aspect of it. I can't help that the responses have latched onto different aspects of it than I wanted answers to - which no one has answered yet. Yes, it is an employment issue and we do intend taking legal advice on - again - I've said as much several times.

Is not just about driving this car at this time - blooming inconvenient that it is - but what the repercussions might be to other car insurance if he's refused this cover. Even if we get a taxi to a local car dealer tomorrow and buy our own vehicle, will this potential refusal of cover prevent him insuring it?

happyandcontented

BooJewels wrote: »

I did say in my very first sentence that it was a complex issue that I wanted to ask about a specific aspect of it. I can't help that the responses have latched onto different aspects of it than I wanted answers to - which no one has answered yet. Yes, it is an employment issue and we do intend taking legal advice on - again - I've said as much several times.

Is not just about driving this car at this time - blooming inconvenient that it is - but what the repercussions might be to other car insurance if he's refused this cover. Even if we get a taxi to a local car dealer tomorrow and buy our own vehicle, will this potential refusal of cover prevent him insuring it?

Not until there has been an actual refusal of insurance.