driving a company vehicle TP only on my own policy

[FNG]

Different subject now really - looking for TP cover on a Cat B given Continuous Insurance rules preclude the possibility outlined below.


Question was:

My fully comprehensive cover allows me to drive any vehicle Third Party only, provided not owned by anyone named on my policy.

Policy doesn't demand that the vehicle in question is insured in its own right. My issue is that I can't get cover on the vehicle. It's not worth much so TP only is fine by me.

Vehicle in question is owned by my limited company and the company name is on the V5.

Ergo it's not owned by me, therefore I can drive it without a separate policy in place.

Allowable? debatable? chancing it? not a hope?

Edited by FNG on Tuesday 8th April 17:20

Edited by FNG on Thursday 10th April 09:04

[NH1]

Does it cover business use using that clause?

[FNG]

Commuting, which is all it'd be used for.

Edit to add: adding cover for business use to my main policy is unlikely to cost much, if anything, so wouldn't be a barrier that couldn't be overcome easily.

Edited by FNG on Tuesday 8th April 16:34

[NH1]

Even if you have business use on your main policy I'm not sure if that could be used when using the driving other cars policy. Hard to argue your not using it for business when its your own companies vehicle.

[FNG]

That's fair enough.

But for commuting only? Or very rare and occasional use of the company vehicle for personal use?

I don't want or need to use it daily, just infrequently as the want arises rather than the need.

[TPS]

FNG said:

My fully comprehensive cover allows me to drive any vehicle Third Party only, provided not owned by anyone named on my policy.

Vehicle in question is owned by my limited company and the company name is on the V5.

Ergo it's not owned by me, therefore I can drive it without a separate policy in place.

Allowable? debatable? chancing it? not a hope?

I am no expert,so I have no honest idea.

However the company vehicle is owned by you in reality in my eyes.

Its your company,you paid for it so in my eyes you own it and are responsible for it.

[NH1]

TPS said:

FNG said:

My fully comprehensive cover allows me to drive any vehicle Third Party only, provided not owned by anyone named on my policy.

Vehicle in question is owned by my limited company and the company name is on the V5.

Ergo it's not owned by me, therefore I can drive it without a separate policy in place.

Allowable? debatable? chancing it? not a hope?

I am no expert,so I have no honest idea.

However the company vehicle is owned by you in reality in my eyes.

Its your company,you paid for it so in my eyes you own it and are responsible for it.

If its limited though you are just an employee of the company so its not technically your car. However insurance companies wriggle out of things if you fart wrong so I wouldn't chance it.

[FNG]

TPS said:

I am no expert,so I have no honest idea.

However the company vehicle is owned by you in reality in my eyes.

Its your company,you paid for it so in my eyes you own it and are responsible for it.

I know that's the view that could be taken, which is why I was asking for a legal / insurance view to confirm or reject the idea.

But I've just remembered the recent law change relating to continuous insurance which renders the question irrelevant.

Car should either be insured or SORNed shouldn't it?

Balls. Ah well.

[LoonR1]

CIE and road tax are moot points. Not having road tax is an offence but non endorsable.

You issue is that it's your company therefore you are a Director and therefore own the vehicle. Pedantry won't win you in this case.

Company car tax. You're using it therefore it's a BIK and you have to declare it and pay income tax on the benefit. Probably immediately negates all saving.

Why would your company buy this car if not to attempt to subvert your insurance?

Loads more reasons why it won't work but that should suffice.

[FNG]

LoonR1 said:

CIE and road tax are moot points. Not having road tax is an offence but non endorsable.

You issue is that it's your company therefore you are a Director and therefore own the vehicle. Pedantry won't win you in this case.

Company car tax. You're using it therefore it's a BIK and you have to declare it and pay income tax on the benefit. Probably immediately negates all saving.

Why would your company buy this car if not to attempt to subvert your insurance?

Loads more reasons why it won't work but that should suffice.

Whether they're endorsable or not doesn't make them moot points, I'm not intending to commit offences provided I can only get fined if caught...

I think you may have deduced that I'm at it. I'm not.

I've found myself with a Cat B car that I can't get insurance cover for.

I don't intend to use it often but would like to use it for occasional commutes and very occasional other use. So BIK isn't a factor.

I'm a director of a company but that doesn't make me the owner of the company's assets. I'm responsible for them, not owner of them.

I was trying to find the position in law, given I'm not the owner of the vehicle in law.

The business did not buy the vehicle with the intent of subverting insurance. It found that insurance cannot readily be had and I need to try to get some use and value from the vehicle as an asset of the company.

As it stands, due to CIE I can't drive this vehicle on my private policy - so ill move on.



Anyone know of any insurers that provide cover for Cat B cars that have been repaired and are acceptable for DVLA to issue a V5 for?

I know Cat Bs do get returned to the road subject to DVLA and VOSA requirements, just struggling to get insurance cover.

Which is understandable but it can be done... through who though?

[reggie82]

Why don't you just give your insurance company a quick call?