Commuting for insurance purposes
Discussion
I usually commute to work on my motorbike (15 miles each way) but occasionally I have to take the car as I need to pick kids up or something. This is probably once every three months or so (ie 1 in 75 commutes)
I usually buy my insurance with commuting included, but just checked and i would save around 20% by buying SD&P only instead.
What are the ramifications if I did so? No cover at all if I drive to work? Third party only cover if I was driving to work? Full cover, but would have to pay extra somehow if I had an accident?
I usually buy my insurance with commuting included, but just checked and i would save around 20% by buying SD&P only instead.
What are the ramifications if I did so? No cover at all if I drive to work? Third party only cover if I was driving to work? Full cover, but would have to pay extra somehow if I had an accident?
No cover. The insurer would still have to settle a third party claim - but that wouldn't get you off a charge of driving without insurance. And having settled the third party claim they could then require you to refund them the money they'd paid out - which could mean unlimited liability for you if you had a serious accident.
Aretnap said:
No cover. The insurer would still have to settle a third party claim - but that wouldn't get you off a charge of driving without insurance. And having settled the third party claim they could then require you to refund them the money they'd paid out - which could mean unlimited liability for you if you had a serious accident.
The Insurer would not have to settle a third party claim, the RTA lets an Insurer of RTA responsibility if the use is not covered by the certificate.dacouch said:
The Insurer would not have to settle a third party claim, the RTA lets an Insurer of RTA responsibility if the use is not covered by the certificate.
Rubbish,they cannot abrogate the responsibilty of paying a 3rd party, but as said they may well come after the driver for reimbursement.martinbiz said:
dacouch said:
The Insurer would not have to settle a third party claim, the RTA lets an Insurer of RTA responsibility if the use is not covered by the certificate.
Rubbish,they cannot abrogate the responsibilty of paying a 3rd party, but as said they may well come after the driver for reimbursement.littleredrooster said:
No cover. No insurance, car seized if stopped and asked to produce. Midland Police seem to be currently having a blitz on this - Twitter reports of seizures for (mostly) this amount to about a dozen per day.
I'm not calling you a lier - but this stinks of brown stuff to me. I've never been asked about my insurance in that way ever when I've been stopped by the police, not have I known anyone who has.
What's more - how do they know people are going to work etc? Finally under the RTA they would still have insurance so the seizure would be unlawful. If this sort of trick was tried on me, I'd by suing the chief constable for recovery fees and hire charges.
photosnob said:
littleredrooster said:
No cover. No insurance, car seized if stopped and asked to produce. Midland Police seem to be currently having a blitz on this - Twitter reports of seizures for (mostly) this amount to about a dozen per day.
I'm not calling you a lier - but this stinks of brown stuff to me. I've never been asked about my insurance in that way ever when I've been stopped by the police, not have I known anyone who has.
What's more - how do they know people are going to work etc? Finally under the RTA they would still have insurance so the seizure would be unlawful. If this sort of trick was tried on me, I'd by suing the chief constable for recovery fees and hire charges.
http://www.ayradvertiser.com/news/ayr/articles/201...
In her case it was probably pretty obvious as she'll likely have had her uniform and badge on, but it's pretty easy to tell anyway - they just ask. If you're quick enough to realise you need to lie, then fair enough, but cops can usually see through that and then you're potentially in a whole heap of trouble.
Sheepshanks said:
I love PH! "Sue the Chief Con".
http://www.ayradvertiser.com/news/ayr/articles/201...
In her case it was probably pretty obvious as she'll likely have had her uniform and badge on, but it's pretty easy to tell anyway - they just ask. If you're quick enough to realise you need to lie, then fair enough, but cops can usually see through that and then you're potentially in a whole heap of trouble.
So you have found one example in a country of over 60 million people... Behave yourself - wearing a uniform doesn't mean you are going to work. I used to go shopping and get lunch when I wore my uniform. As for the Police's magical ability to read minds and tell when someone isn't being completely open, well I've not experienced that yet in person. http://www.ayradvertiser.com/news/ayr/articles/201...
In her case it was probably pretty obvious as she'll likely have had her uniform and badge on, but it's pretty easy to tell anyway - they just ask. If you're quick enough to realise you need to lie, then fair enough, but cops can usually see through that and then you're potentially in a whole heap of trouble.
It's really rather simple - if your insurer would have been forced to cover third party risks then for the purposes of the police you have insurance. I personally have business insurance for my car, as I have to have it to get my fuel payed back to me.
Also when making a claim against the police - who do you think you sue?
And if anyone demanded to know where I was going with my car I'd be asking what it had to do with them... What law requires me to tell the police where and what I am doing... In fact, if they have reasonable ground to believe you are commiting an offence they should caution you anyway. It all sounds a bit suspect to me.
Edited by photosnob on Tuesday 23 December 23:50
photosnob said:
littleredrooster said:
No cover. No insurance, car seized if stopped and asked to produce. Midland Police seem to be currently having a blitz on this - Twitter reports of seizures for (mostly) this amount to about a dozen per day.
I'm not calling you a lier - but this stinks of brown stuff to me. I've never been asked about my insurance in that way ever when I've been stopped by the police, not have I known anyone who has.
What's more - how do they know people are going to work etc? Finally under the RTA they would still have insurance so the seizure would be unlawful. If this sort of trick was tried on me, I'd by suing the chief constable for recovery fees and hire charges.
. And methinks you've been lucky?? 
Eg A driver gets stopped by the police and - as part of the interview - is asked where they are going and where they have come from. "I'm driving from my office to meet a colleague at a food outlet" says the driver; the nice policeperson says something along the lines of "to talk about business?" and the driver replies in the positive. The policedrone then (having already checked the insurance databases open to him/her) replies that the driver is only insured SP&D + commuting, and makes the assumption that this is the driver driving "on business" (which the driver will confirm with judicious questioning
) therefore (s)he isn't insured on this journey and the not-so-friendly-now police occifer now arranges for the car to be seized under Section 165.The driver generally - in their honesty, their wish to blab
- gives the game away .And while the insurer may pay out any TP claims in these circs, they are fully entitled to claim back the outgoings from the "insured" - who wasn't insured at the time WHICH IS KEY as they weren't insured for "business use" (the devil is in the fine print which no bugger reads
) . As such, the driver wasn't insured under whatever act applies (Road Traffic Act?), and as such is liable to prosecution. If you ever fall foul of this "trap" (
) when you open your mouth at the roadside to plead your case - and many do so and sing like a canary quite innocently 
- I am sure we all wish you All The Best .PS it's "Liar", (pedantically
) "be" and (more pedantically ) "local chief of police" (there isn't always a "chief constable", there might be some equivalent - not that you'd succeed in suing them for recovery and storage fees if you weren't insured for the use the vehicle was being put to and the seizure was legal on such grounds) .photosnob said:
It's really rather simple - if your insurer would have been forced to cover third party risks then for the purposes of the police you have insurance.
Sorry but this is incorrect. The fact that an insurer may liable for 3rd party claims does not mean that a driver is covered by a valid policy of insurance as required by s143 of the RTA. As an extreme example if your car is stolen and the thief crashes it, your insurance would pay out for damage/injury to 3rd parties, however the thief is definitely not insured for the purpose of the relevant law.
Cat
aw51 121565 said:
You need to read around on the interweb thingie . And methinks you've been lucky??
Eg A driver gets stopped by the police and - as part of the interview - is asked where they are going and where they have come from. "I'm driving from my office to meet a colleague at a food outlet" says the driver; the nice policeperson says something along the lines of "to talk about business?" and the driver replies in the positive. The policedrone then (having already checked the insurance databases open to him/her) replies that the driver is only insured SP&D + commuting, and makes the assumption that this is the driver driving "on business" (which the driver will confirm with judicious questioning ) therefore (s)he isn't insured on this journey and the not-so-friendly-now police occifer now arranges for the car to be seized under Section 165.
The driver generally - in their honesty, their wish to blab - gives the game away .
And while the insurer may pay out any TP claims in these circs, they are fully entitled to claim back the outgoings from the "insured" - who wasn't insured at the time WHICH IS KEY as they weren't insured for "business use" (the devil is in the fine print which no bugger reads ) .
As such, the driver wasn't insured under whatever act applies (Road Traffic Act?), and as such is liable to prosecution. If you ever fall foul of this "trap" ( ) when you open your mouth at the roadside to plead your case - and many do so and sing like a canary quite innocently - I am sure we all wish you All The Best .
PS it's "Liar", (pedantically ) "be" and (more pedantically ) "local chief of police" (there isn't always a "chief constable", there might be some equivalent - not that you'd succeed in suing them for recovery and storage fees if you weren't insured for the use the vehicle was being put to and the seizure was legal on such grounds) .
Explain this to me please - how can the insurance pay out at per their obligation under the RTA, and you have no insurance with respect of the RTA? The two contradict each other - an insurers ability to make a claim for breach of contract, does not mean you didn't have insurance. . And methinks you've been lucky?? Eg A driver gets stopped by the police and - as part of the interview - is asked where they are going and where they have come from. "I'm driving from my office to meet a colleague at a food outlet" says the driver; the nice policeperson says something along the lines of "to talk about business?" and the driver replies in the positive. The policedrone then (having already checked the insurance databases open to him/her) replies that the driver is only insured SP&D + commuting, and makes the assumption that this is the driver driving "on business" (which the driver will confirm with judicious questioning
) therefore (s)he isn't insured on this journey and the not-so-friendly-now police occifer now arranges for the car to be seized under Section 165.The driver generally - in their honesty, their wish to blab
- gives the game away .And while the insurer may pay out any TP claims in these circs, they are fully entitled to claim back the outgoings from the "insured" - who wasn't insured at the time WHICH IS KEY as they weren't insured for "business use" (the devil is in the fine print which no bugger reads
) . As such, the driver wasn't insured under whatever act applies (Road Traffic Act?), and as such is liable to prosecution. If you ever fall foul of this "trap" (
) when you open your mouth at the roadside to plead your case - and many do so and sing like a canary quite innocently - I am sure we all wish you All The Best .PS it's "Liar", (pedantically
) "be" and (more pedantically ) "local chief of police" (there isn't always a "chief constable", there might be some equivalent - not that you'd succeed in suing them for recovery and storage fees if you weren't insured for the use the vehicle was being put to and the seizure was legal on such grounds) .You talk about reading around a little more - how about you direct me to case law to support this crazy idea... I'm pretty sure someone would have appealed it if the police were going around playing these sorts of games.
You are also making a lot of assumptions, if I was pulled over I wouldn't be having a jolly chat about where I was going or what I was doing. I wouldn't be rude or difficult - I'd just say I didn't want to go into it.
Cat said:
Sorry but this is incorrect. The fact that an insurer may liable for 3rd party claims does not mean that a driver is covered by a valid policy of insurance as required by s143 of the RTA.
As an extreme example if your car is stolen and the thief crashes it, your insurance would pay out for damage/injury to 3rd parties, however the thief is definitely not insured for the purpose of the relevant law.
Cat
In that example you make a fair point - but I'm talking specifically about legislation which says you have no insurance if you are driving for work etc... Or even with modifications. I keep reading on here from the distinguished members how the law should/will work, however in reality I know plenty of people who drive around like this, get pulled over and even crash. And nothing never comes off it. As an extreme example if your car is stolen and the thief crashes it, your insurance would pay out for damage/injury to 3rd parties, however the thief is definitely not insured for the purpose of the relevant law.
Cat
This is the first thing that came up when I searched it - isn't as clear cut as some would like to believe: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=444...
Edited by photosnob on Wednesday 24th December 00:18
It is every bit as clear cut as some of here are making out - if you have insurance which only covers you for SDP and are using the car for business then you are committing an offence in terms of s143 of the RTA. The fact that you know of people who do this and get away with it and the fact that the police don't always ask questions about the specific use of the vehicle when they stop someone is by the by.
Cat
Cat
martinbiz said:
Rubbish,they cannot abrogate the responsibilty of paying a 3rd party, but as said they may well come after the driver for reimbursement.
Read this link especially pages 10 & 11 which will explain ithttp://www.12kbw.co.uk/userfiles/Documents/Motor_i...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff