Pulled over for tints-Getting 6 points for invalid insurance
Discussion
MustangGT said:
Foss62 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Ken_Code said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well there's your mistake. Why would you ask people, people are idiots. If you're driving to work, even once a year, on that day you are commuting to the office in your car. You are either covered for that or you aren't.
That’s not the standard meaning of the word commute, it connotes regularity.https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
You can’t commute for “one day”, however anything that creates a pattern of visits would justify the insurer’s use of the term. So - going to the office every day, once a month, even just for every five year work anniversary presentation is “commuting”, but I doubt if an insurer could claim a home-worker picking up a new laptop from reception was on a regular visit. The onus would presumably be on the insurer to prove that the insured was a commuter?
Foss62 said:
Yes - as this is a response to my comment, I completely agree. If you commute then you commute, if you use a car for this, even only occasionally, then you need it to be insured accordingly. My point was around the definition of commuting, and it might be hard to prove that someone who normally works from home is ever a commuter.
If your noirmal place of work is home, and you travel to another place of work, that is business travel.jm doc said:
911hope said:
jm doc said:
Drawweight said:
I’d love to see you convince any insurance company court that travelling to your place of work is domestic.
It flies in the face of every piece of advice given by legal minds over the years.
Yes some insurers include commuting in an SDP policy but that is purely their business model and in no way undermines the original principle.
Well done. Completely contradicted yourself in 3 sentences. That's quite an achievement even by PH standards!It flies in the face of every piece of advice given by legal minds over the years.
Yes some insurers include commuting in an SDP policy but that is purely their business model and in no way undermines the original principle.
Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
The sections you have highlighted are making different statements. They don't contradict each other.
jm doc said:
See above. Poster makes a categorical statement then immediately contradicts it by qualifying it, thus rendering it incorrect.
Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
Correction.Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
It is stated that......Some insurers include commuting in a sdp titled policies. You will find that the policy wording permits commuting.
This is NOT the same as equating commuting to domestic.
98elise said:
No it wouldn’t. You're not obliged to commute, you're covered to commute. Same with all the other things you are covered for (fire, theft etc). Comprehensive can be cheaper than third party, but you're not obliged to claim.
Assuming not trolling I wonder how some people on this thread cope with genuinely complex stuff.
Not trolling and I managed to cope with a fairly complex career in science for over 40 years.Assuming not trolling I wonder how some people on this thread cope with genuinely complex stuff.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t do it, but at the very least tailoring your profile for a better quote seems to be gaming the system. However, after an insurer suggested that the best way of getting cheaper insurance for my daughter was to put my wife’s car in her name and add me and my wife as named drivers, I suppose I need to accept that SOME blatantly untrue scenarios seem to be OK with insurers….
Foss62 said:
Not trolling and I managed to cope with a fairly complex career in science for over 40 years.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t do it, but at the very least tailoring your profile for a better quote seems to be gaming the system. However, after an insurer suggested that the best way of getting cheaper insurance for my daughter was to put my wife’s car in her name and add me and my wife as named drivers, I suppose I need to accept that SOME blatantly untrue scenarios seem to be OK with insurers….
Are you really saying an insurance company (not a broker) told you to make false statement that the non main user was the main user?I’m not saying I wouldn’t do it, but at the very least tailoring your profile for a better quote seems to be gaming the system. However, after an insurer suggested that the best way of getting cheaper insurance for my daughter was to put my wife’s car in her name and add me and my wife as named drivers, I suppose I need to accept that SOME blatantly untrue scenarios seem to be OK with insurers….
Did they also say the standard words that making false statements could invalidate the policy.
mcpoot said:
jm doc said:
911hope said:
jm doc said:
Drawweight said:
I’d love to see you convince any insurance company court that travelling to your place of work is domestic.
It flies in the face of every piece of advice given by legal minds over the years.
Yes some insurers include commuting in an SDP policy but that is purely their business model and in no way undermines the original principle.
Well done. Completely contradicted yourself in 3 sentences. That's quite an achievement even by PH standards!It flies in the face of every piece of advice given by legal minds over the years.
Yes some insurers include commuting in an SDP policy but that is purely their business model and in no way undermines the original principle.
Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
You need to work on your English comprehension and use of logic.
The fact that some insurers do allow this as part of an SDP policy in my view strengthens this belief.
To imply otherwise as you appear to, is just sophistry, a view which is supported by the fact that you have made an assertion without any support for the assertion.
Criticising my "comprehension and logic" is fine, but with nothing to back up your assertions they are just empty statements and reflect on your logic (or lack of), not mine.
911hope said:
jm doc said:
See above. Poster makes a categorical statement then immediately contradicts it by qualifying it, thus rendering it incorrect.
Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
Correction.Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
It is stated that......Some insurers include commuting in a sdp titled policies. You will find that the policy wording permits commuting.
This is NOT the same as equating commuting to domestic.
As previously stated, the definition of "domestic" is broad and clearly some insurance companies accept this.
OutInTheShed said:
If your noirmal place of work is home, and you travel to another place of work, that is business travel.
That’s certainly the tax interpretation (you might in certain circumstances be able to claim expenses for that - but not for commuting). Not so clear for insurance though - most business policies cover ‘travel between business premises’. I’m not sure that home, or anywhere else you might choose to send e mails from, would class as business premises?jm doc said:
Yes the policy describes all the uses that are allowed on a SDP policy, not just commuting, but commuting forms part of the policy. They accept commuting on a domestic policy.
As previously stated, the definition of "domestic" is broad and clearly some insurance companies accept this.
So it is a SDP and C policy.As previously stated, the definition of "domestic" is broad and clearly some insurance companies accept this.
911hope said:
Hmm.
The sections you have highlighted are making different statements. They don't contradict each other.
The first statement says no insurance company would accept that travelling to work is domestic.The sections you have highlighted are making different statements. They don't contradict each other.
The other statement says that some insurance companies accept that travelling to work is part of a domestic policy.
I've highlighted it, I hope that is clear enough for you.
jm doc said:
911hope said:
jm doc said:
See above. Poster makes a categorical statement then immediately contradicts it by qualifying it, thus rendering it incorrect.
Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
Correction.Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
It is stated that......Some insurers include commuting in a sdp titled policies. You will find that the policy wording permits commuting.
This is NOT the same as equating commuting to domestic.
As previously stated, the definition of "domestic" is broad and clearly some insurance companies accept this.
911hope said:
jm doc said:
Yes the policy describes all the uses that are allowed on a SDP policy, not just commuting, but commuting forms part of the policy. They accept commuting on a domestic policy.
As previously stated, the definition of "domestic" is broad and clearly some insurance companies accept this.
So it is a SDP and C policy.As previously stated, the definition of "domestic" is broad and clearly some insurance companies accept this.
ConnectionError said:
jm doc said:
911hope said:
jm doc said:
See above. Poster makes a categorical statement then immediately contradicts it by qualifying it, thus rendering it incorrect.
Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
Correction.Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
It is stated that......Some insurers include commuting in a sdp titled policies. You will find that the policy wording permits commuting.
This is NOT the same as equating commuting to domestic.
As previously stated, the definition of "domestic" is broad and clearly some insurance companies accept this.
Alex_225 said:
I wasn't trying to be a d!ck on that just a jokey comment.
I know what you mean, technically you're not covered commuting, assuming that is explicitly stated in your policy. But what I mean is that if the OP had simply said, 'going to the shops' for example, literally no one can prove otherwise.
Probably mostly true, but most people wouldn’t outright lie if put on the spot. And in the event of a big accident, both the police and insurers will dig into every detail.I know what you mean, technically you're not covered commuting, assuming that is explicitly stated in your policy. But what I mean is that if the OP had simply said, 'going to the shops' for example, literally no one can prove otherwise.
Alex_225 said:
I work from home but I got a lift to the station this morning, so I didn't commute but the car was at the same risk as if I was.
The situation becomes ridiculous if the person giving you a lift is only insured SD&P. 911hope said:
Foss62 said:
Not trolling and I managed to cope with a fairly complex career in science for over 40 years.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t do it, but at the very least tailoring your profile for a better quote seems to be gaming the system. However, after an insurer suggested that the best way of getting cheaper insurance for my daughter was to put my wife’s car in her name and add me and my wife as named drivers, I suppose I need to accept that SOME blatantly untrue scenarios seem to be OK with insurers….
Are you really saying an insurance company (not a broker) told you to make false statement that the non main user was the main user?I’m not saying I wouldn’t do it, but at the very least tailoring your profile for a better quote seems to be gaming the system. However, after an insurer suggested that the best way of getting cheaper insurance for my daughter was to put my wife’s car in her name and add me and my wife as named drivers, I suppose I need to accept that SOME blatantly untrue scenarios seem to be OK with insurers….
Did they also say the standard words that making false statements could invalidate the policy.
I thought better of it and we went for specified short term insurance in the end.
Monkeylegend said:
ConnectionError said:
jm doc said:
911hope said:
jm doc said:
See above. Poster makes a categorical statement then immediately contradicts it by qualifying it, thus rendering it incorrect.
Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
Correction.Some insurers accept that it is domestic.
It is stated that......Some insurers include commuting in a sdp titled policies. You will find that the policy wording permits commuting.
This is NOT the same as equating commuting to domestic.
As previously stated, the definition of "domestic" is broad and clearly some insurance companies accept this.
jm doc said:
911hope said:
Hmm.
The sections you have highlighted are making different statements. They don't contradict each other.
The first statement says no insurance company would accept that travelling to work is domestic.The sections you have highlighted are making different statements. They don't contradict each other.
The other statement says that some insurance companies accept that travelling to work is part of a domestic policy.
I've highlighted it, I hope that is clear enough for you.
I fear it is beyond you and as I have no desire to
I will leave you to your mistaken interpretation.The Gauge said:
Could it be that the OP was shall we say - less than polite- with the police officers over being done for the tints, and so the officers then decided to dig a bit deeper into his insurance and decided to throw that book at him too?
Not having cover for a one off commute might be the kind of thing the officers could turn a blind eye to assuming the driver comes across as a reasonable person, has made a simple mistake and is capable of taking the officers advice to get their updated, unless the driver behaves like a complete n**head towards them.
Not saying this is definitely the case here, but is there more we don't know?
I agree & this was my first instinct...it seems pretty harsh but if you fail the attitude test for the tints it then make's perfect sense I guess!Not having cover for a one off commute might be the kind of thing the officers could turn a blind eye to assuming the driver comes across as a reasonable person, has made a simple mistake and is capable of taking the officers advice to get their updated, unless the driver behaves like a complete n**head towards them.
Not saying this is definitely the case here, but is there more we don't know?
Edited by The Gauge on Tuesday 21st May 13:47
RS_MAN_CHILD said:
The Gauge said:
Could it be that the OP was shall we say - less than polite- with the police officers over being done for the tints, and so the officers then decided to dig a bit deeper into his insurance and decided to throw that book at him too?
Not having cover for a one off commute might be the kind of thing the officers could turn a blind eye to assuming the driver comes across as a reasonable person, has made a simple mistake and is capable of taking the officers advice to get their updated, unless the driver behaves like a complete n**head towards them.
Not saying this is definitely the case here, but is there more we don't know?
I agree & this was my first instinct...it seems pretty harsh but if you fail the attitude test for the tints it then make's perfect sense I guess!Not having cover for a one off commute might be the kind of thing the officers could turn a blind eye to assuming the driver comes across as a reasonable person, has made a simple mistake and is capable of taking the officers advice to get their updated, unless the driver behaves like a complete n**head towards them.
Not saying this is definitely the case here, but is there more we don't know?
Edited by The Gauge on Tuesday 21st May 13:47
Also if they are stopped for one thing isn’t it normal to check for others? Examine the tyres to make sure they are legal, check it’s taxed and insured. Oops it’s not correctly insured. Once again it’s mentioned frequently on here if you have tints or an illegal plate better make sure the rest of the car is legal because they will go through it.
The OP had illegal tints and wasn’t correctly insured. He has his versions of excuses but both his charges could have been avoided very easily before venturing out in the car.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff