Company Car Excess
Discussion
Afternoon all,
I've returned to work after a few days annual leave to a interesting email from our GM. Basically after several recent driver fault claims to our insurance company they have said that the drivers are now responsible for the excess part of any claim.
This is currently £500.
I don't currently have a company car but was hoping in the next few months to move into a position that would give me one but now reconsidering this move. The company does not allow you to opt out of the scheme and we are not able to use our own vehicles (even if you can show you have insured for business use) in place of the pool cars we have access to.
My personal stance is that I will now refuse to drive a company vehicle, but this is probably not going to go down well with the management.
The current sales team are hopping mad, but can see the problem as well.
I realise you can always "find another job" but I would prefer not to over this. Is there any argument against it? Basically if you have a company car and have even a 50/50 claim against you you have to pay up to £500 excess, which is more than I could afford, and more than I would have on a personal insurance contract.
I feel its unfair that they impose this and block use of personal vehicles.
I've returned to work after a few days annual leave to a interesting email from our GM. Basically after several recent driver fault claims to our insurance company they have said that the drivers are now responsible for the excess part of any claim.
This is currently £500.
I don't currently have a company car but was hoping in the next few months to move into a position that would give me one but now reconsidering this move. The company does not allow you to opt out of the scheme and we are not able to use our own vehicles (even if you can show you have insured for business use) in place of the pool cars we have access to.
My personal stance is that I will now refuse to drive a company vehicle, but this is probably not going to go down well with the management.
The current sales team are hopping mad, but can see the problem as well.
I realise you can always "find another job" but I would prefer not to over this. Is there any argument against it? Basically if you have a company car and have even a 50/50 claim against you you have to pay up to £500 excess, which is more than I could afford, and more than I would have on a personal insurance contract.
I feel its unfair that they impose this and block use of personal vehicles.
big_boz said:
When you say the "block" the use of personal cars i assume you cant claim back the mileage?
They specifically tell you that you can't use your own vehicle, we do have three pool cars and a company van that is there for business use. Its never been an issue to use these and they are decent enough cars. I guess any attempt to put a claim in for mileage would be refused.The next time I have a reson to go off site I will be pushing to use my own car as I won't be held liable for this charge.
The Crack Fox said:
How would they take the money from you ? Why are you having to pay part of their insurance risk ?
Payroll deduction.They are probably fed up with the users driving the cars into solid objects and costing them a fortune in repairs so this is their idea to try and focus the users attention on that.
kieranbennett said:
The next time I have a reson to go off site I will be pushing to use my own car as I won't be held liable for this charge.
Just check first that your own insurance covers you for business use.I'd have thought that just bringing in a change like that is a big no-no - it's effectively changing the terms of your employment contract. Might be worth checking in the SP&L bit on here to see if anyone can give you some advice.
As for how they would actually take the money - in answer to another poster, they would simply deduct the money from your wages.
The Crack Fox said:
That sucks.
YepThe Crack Fox said:
Do you really think they would carry it out ?
YepThe Crack Fox said:
How would they take the money from you ?
I guess salary sacrificeThe Crack Fox said:
Why are you having to pay part of their insurance risk ?
Quote from the email received: "this will make us more attentive in avoiding collisions if we have a personal stake in the claim"They couldn't simply deduct the money from staff wages unless they had the employee's written consent to do so.
As an ex-colleague of people whose abuse of company vehicles knew no limits whatsoever, I do have some sympathy with the OP's employer on this one and I can fully understand why they might be looking at implementing such a scheme.
That said, they can't do it on a whim and they'd need the express agreement of all company car users for it to be enforceable - this would likely require appropriate amendment to the contracts of employment and / or company vehicle policies.
As an ex-colleague of people whose abuse of company vehicles knew no limits whatsoever, I do have some sympathy with the OP's employer on this one and I can fully understand why they might be looking at implementing such a scheme.
That said, they can't do it on a whim and they'd need the express agreement of all company car users for it to be enforceable - this would likely require appropriate amendment to the contracts of employment and / or company vehicle policies.
We have a three strikes rule and then pay 25% - 50% and then 100% of the excess. Its supposed to sort the careless/clumsy/accident prone out from the rest although I've never heard of it enforced.
If it was a car you'd funded yourself you'd have to pay the excess so really, what does it matter?
If it was a car you'd funded yourself you'd have to pay the excess so really, what does it matter?
kieranbennett said:
sunbeam alpine said:
My wife's company car is also subject to this, but only where she is at fault. If someone hits her (has happened twice), the excess doesn't apply.
Can I ask how much she would be liable for?I'm not 100% against this, but feel that £500 is too much.
You may be able to get a tax deduction against any excess sum that you have to pay.
If you make contributions towards your company car, then these can be offset against the taxable benefit in kind.
I can't see why a £500 sum towards the running costs wouldn't be classed as such a contribution.
If you're a 40% tax payer, this brings the real cost from £500 down to £300. Just a thought.
If you make contributions towards your company car, then these can be offset against the taxable benefit in kind.
I can't see why a £500 sum towards the running costs wouldn't be classed as such a contribution.
If you're a 40% tax payer, this brings the real cost from £500 down to £300. Just a thought.
£500 seems excessive. Especially given that company car users are generally high mileage drivers and therefore naturally at higher risk (which is part of the justification for a company car in the first place!).
My employers' car policy states that after the first claim with a year, all subsequent claims attract a £150 excess paid by the driver; this excludes theft/vandalism, windscreens, or where costs are covered by a third party (i.e. a successful claim against someone else). So a far more manageable cost, only applicable on the "second strike" and excludes damage caused by a third party.
My employers' car policy states that after the first claim with a year, all subsequent claims attract a £150 excess paid by the driver; this excludes theft/vandalism, windscreens, or where costs are covered by a third party (i.e. a successful claim against someone else). So a far more manageable cost, only applicable on the "second strike" and excludes damage caused by a third party.
Edited by Jonny_ on Thursday 19th September 14:43
Op...to my mind this is where i stand.....
If you have access to a pool car with no fuel costs and no insurance or other related running costs, yes if you have a shunt that is your fault then yes you will have to pay the excess...but think of all the costs you are not incurring from running your own motor. Its a benefit and i would see it as that..too black and white.... perhaps.
If you have access to a pool car with no fuel costs and no insurance or other related running costs, yes if you have a shunt that is your fault then yes you will have to pay the excess...but think of all the costs you are not incurring from running your own motor. Its a benefit and i would see it as that..too black and white.... perhaps.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff