Pulled over for tints-Getting 6 points for invalid insurance
Discussion
Foss62 said:
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.
That mentions both SDP and SDP+C
911hope said:
Does not seem likely that the suggested remedies would be effective.
I think you will find that commuting also includes returning from workplace.
Also going to workplace from a claimed other start point is also commuting.
I think you may have mis-intepreted what I was saying or it wasn't clear.. if I was in ops shoes, and the policeman pounced on ''I am going to work", I would immediately have the day off and work from home. I think you will find that commuting also includes returning from workplace.
Also going to workplace from a claimed other start point is also commuting.
"I intended that I was going to work.. from my mums house remotely for the day so I could be there for a delivery". Commuting is normally termed as commuting to a normal place of work..
Alex_225 said:
E-bmw said:
Yes, it counts as commuting.
If it didn't then the drive to the company car park wouldn't count as you walk the last 50 yards.
But to be pedantic, the car park is the work car park and therefore the place of work. The train station is 20 miles away from my place of work. If it didn't then the drive to the company car park wouldn't count as you walk the last 50 yards.
It is still commuting.
Dingu said:
How this is causing people so many issues I have no idea.
Because some people aren't intelligent enough to recognize when something is ambiguous.All the evidence, the fact the wording on this by insurers has been constantly evolving even in recent years. Cases of the ombudsman siding with the customer, a steady stream of people coming on to this thread saying well I had no idea the insurer took this position I am going to call them.
Despite all that people still want to insist it's black and white and completely obvious.
e-honda said:
Dingu said:
How this is causing people so many issues I have no idea.
Because some people aren't intelligent enough to recognize when something is ambiguous.All the evidence, the fact the wording on this by insurers has been constantly evolving even in recent years. Cases of the ombudsman siding with the customer, a steady stream of people coming on to this thread saying well I had no idea the insurer took this position I am going to call them.
Despite all that people still want to insist it's black and white and completely obvious.
911hope said:
e-honda said:
Dingu said:
How this is causing people so many issues I have no idea.
Because some people aren't intelligent enough to recognize when something is ambiguous.All the evidence, the fact the wording on this by insurers has been constantly evolving even in recent years. Cases of the ombudsman siding with the customer, a steady stream of people coming on to this thread saying well I had no idea the insurer took this position I am going to call them.
Despite all that people still want to insist it's black and white and completely obvious.
Read the terms & conditions of YOUR policy on YOUR car, they are in black & white in your email/on the documents online etc.
E-bmw said:
911hope said:
e-honda said:
Dingu said:
How this is causing people so many issues I have no idea.
Because some people aren't intelligent enough to recognize when something is ambiguous.All the evidence, the fact the wording on this by insurers has been constantly evolving even in recent years. Cases of the ombudsman siding with the customer, a steady stream of people coming on to this thread saying well I had no idea the insurer took this position I am going to call them.
Despite all that people still want to insist it's black and white and completely obvious.
Read the terms & conditions of YOUR policy on YOUR car, they are in black & white in your email/on the documents online etc.
jm doc said:
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.
rscott said:
Not according to this page - https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/is-your-car-insur... .
That mentions both SDP and SDP+C
LV seem to contradict themselves.That mentions both SDP and SDP+C
It's already been posted once, but (link)
With LV= Car Insurance we define SD&P as including driving to a single workplace, provided there are no business-related stops made during the journey.".
However I'm with LV, have SD&P cover, and my policy doc says "Covered for social, domestic and pleasure use, excluding commuting to work".
rscott said:
Foss62 said:
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.
That mentions both SDP and SDP+C
https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/for-car-insurance...
So for all those who are wondering why some PH contributors are a bit confused, it might be due to the actual insurers posting contradictory things….
Foss62 said:
This is what I found:
https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/for-car-insurance...
So for all those who are wondering why some PH contributors are a bit confused, it might be due to the actual insurers posting contradictory things….
Just realised that Wrekin beat me to it and added a further twist. It would be interesting to know what the ‘holier than thous’ and resident experts have to say about this https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/for-car-insurance...
So for all those who are wondering why some PH contributors are a bit confused, it might be due to the actual insurers posting contradictory things….
.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff