Not insured for commuting mismatch and odd behaviour??

[Wildfire]

I was on the way to work the other day and was pulled over by a police car. Apparently I was riding erratically. I was filtering at around 10mph beside standstill traffic.

Officer does the usual spiel, is this your bike? Is it in good working order? Is it legal? Everything is in order as far as I'm concerned.

Other copper looks up as says " It's a 66 plate, we won't find anything."

Lead copper says "Keep looking we'll find something."

Bit confused now seems like they are looking for something?

Cop #1: Where are you going?

Me: Work

Cop: Where do you work?

Me: Gives him location of site I am off to today (I'm a contractor / have no fixed place of work and choose my own hours)

Cop: What do you do and who do you work for?

Me: Why?

Cop: Just answer the question.

Me: I don't see how it's relevant.

Cop: Are you insured?

Me: Yes, fully and gps tracked. I wasn't and haven't been speeding. I can show you the gps logs.

Cop: Have you got your insurance certificate? If you don't I want to see it tonight.

Me: Yes, I have it on my phone.

Cop: (looks at his hand held thing): My computer says social and domestic use. No commuting.

Me: I definitely have commuting, it was only £20 more. (Shows cop insurance cert on phone, which shows SDP and commuting).

Cop: My computer says you don't have commuting. If you don't have it we'll take your bike and crush it and you'll be charged with riding with no insurance.

Me: All I have is this certificate as I get my documents via email.

So after this he makes me give the key to the other copper, who goes about testing the whole bike, checks every inch of the tyres, takes the seat off, checks my tool kit, all the bike. Whilst this is happening, he makes me call the insurance company, who are not open, so he can speak to them as I may have falsified my documents??

I was there for 30 min until he decided that they weren't going to answer until 9am (another 30 min).

Now I can understand this if I was a "yoof" on a scooter or heap of a commuter, but this is a new Ducati Monster, clean and shiny and I produced everything they asked for, but they seemed intent on trying to find something.

He left saying that they would come back to my house that evening and take the bike if it was found that I was not insured for commuting.

Can they do that? Theoretically as I have no set place of work or set hours, I could have decided I was not commuting anymore and gone shopping.

I am very bemused at their behaviour.

[codenamecueball]

Surely if you have no set place of work or set hours you should have Class 1 business insurance? Are you self employed?

Edited by codenamecueball on Friday 30th June 13:39

[vonhosen]

Commuting is to a regular location of work, it's business Class 1 for several different places of work.

Odd conversation though.
Is it possible they have seen you riding outside the rules on a previous occasion but were unable to stop you at that time?

[vsonix]

Don't forget, if you are innocent you have nothing to fear! Many MOPs lie about having commuting cover, it's because times are hard and everyone wants to save £20! The police officers were 100% correct to treat you like a suspect etc etc etc [/froth]

[Wildfire]

codenamecueball said:

Surely if you have no set place of work or set hours you should have Class 1 business insurance? Are you self employed?

I'm a contractor that works for a company with multiple clients. Although I have one main client at the moment and I am on their site 4/5 days and have been for a year and a half now. On the advice of my insurance company, they said this was commuting. Also the other clients I take the train as they are either in London or I need the train.

I was happy saying I was commuting, that's what I was doing, I was just confused why he wouldn't take my insurance certificate as genuine. I showed all the emails etc. from the company and the other documents, as they were all on my phone.

[mickmcpaddy]

If you show the police a copy of a valid certificate then that removes any rights the copper has to seizing the vehicle, despite whether he thinks the car is uninsured or not, even if he thinks the certificate is a forgery.

I cant find a link at the moment but there was a case a while ago involving Saga insurance and a borrowed car, the bloke that was stopped had a letter from his friend giving permission to drive and had the cert on him with DOC permission. The copper was having none of it and seized the car, from what I remember the overriding factor was he showed the copper the cert and that should have been the end of it.

[E36GUY]

Wildfire said:

I'm a contractor that works for a company with multiple clients. Although I have one main client at the moment and I am on their site 4/5 days and have been for a year and a half now. On the advice of my insurance company, they said this was commuting. Also the other clients I take the train as they are either in London or I need the train.

I was happy saying I was commuting, that's what I was doing, I was just confused why he wouldn't take my insurance certificate as genuine. I showed all the emails etc. from the company and the other documents, as they were all on my phone.

I would suggest you get business insurance anyway matey then you know you're covered for anything. It added nothing worth moaning about to my bike policy and means I'm free to bike to a client if the weather's nice.

[voyds9]

It would help if the insurance companies agreed on what was business use.

I've been told by various different companies at different times.

i) It's business if you travel to more than one place of work
ii) it's business if you don't have set days at various places of work.
iii) It's business if you carry tools with you.
iv) it's business only if you go out to another place whilst at work.

One firm told me it was ok to go visit clients so long as I didn't take 'tools'

But then we get in to discussions of how many 'work' miles.

My business is a 100 mile round trip 2-3x per week.
I also work for other firms as required, generally, a 75 mile round trip.
Is my mileage to these business? How many miles do I say as it is 25 miles less than my normal commute.
I often get the idea that the people on the phones are also guessing.

[Magic919]

If I was the OP, I'd get business use cover. Commuting usually means the one permanent place of work and I get class 1 use for any more than that.

[mickmcpaddy]

This is the section of law I was on about

2.1 The power to seize vehicles is contained within Section 152 of the Serious Organised
Crime and Police Act 2005 (hereafter referred to as the Act) and the Road Traffic Act
1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005. The
intention of these provisions is to empower police officers to take action against
vehicles which are being driven by drivers who do not hold a valid driving licence
(contrary to Sections 87 RTA 1988) or used without a valid certificate of insurance
(143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988).

2.2 The powers are designed to allow police officers to take immediate action to deal
effectively with these vehicles and drivers. The power to seize a vehicle will only be
used if it is believed that the driver does not hold and cannot immediately produce a
valid driving licence and counterpart or there is no valid certificate of insurance in force
and one cannot be immediately produced.
3. SEIZURE POWERS

3.1 Section 152 (4) of the Act states:-

3.1.1 "where a constable (in uniform) has required a person to produce their licence and
counterpart or evidence of insurance, the person has not done so and the constable
has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being (or has been) driven
by a person not holding a valid driving licence or not appropriately insured against third
party risks which contravenes Section 87 or 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (no
driving licence and no insurance), the vehicle, if moving, may be stopped and may be
seized and removed by the constable.

3.2 These powers can be used where vehicles are being used:

3.2.1 On a public road where the vehicle is being driven without the driver holding a valid
driving licence in contravention of Section 87 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

3.2.2 On a public road where the vehicle is being driven without a valid certificate of
insurance being in force in contravention of Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

3.3 Section 152 (3) of the Act gives the following powers to a constable in uniform:

(a) power to seize immediately and remove the motor vehicle;
....
.....
.......
4.3.2 In the event of a dispute, it would be for the courts to decide what constituted
'reasonable steps' in any particular case.

Note the word used is "and", not "or". So in the OPs case after he showed the cooper a valid cert this should put an end to any talk of seizure, if the copper carried on he was acting unlawfully.

[Dr Jekyll]

voyds9 said:

It would help if the insurance companies agreed on what was business use.

I've been told by various different companies at different times.

i) It's business if you travel to more than one place of work
ii) it's business if you don't have set days at various places of work.
iii) It's business if you carry tools with you.
iv) it's business only if you go out to another place whilst at work.

One firm told me it was ok to go visit clients so long as I didn't take 'tools'

But then we get in to discussions of how many 'work' miles.

My business is a 100 mile round trip 2-3x per week.
I also work for other firms as required, generally, a 75 mile round trip.
Is my mileage to these business? How many miles do I say as it is 25 miles less than my normal commute.
I often get the idea that the people on the phones are also guessing.

I always take the view that if I can claim mileage it's business, but insure for both commuting and class 1 business use to be on the safe side.

It wouldn't surprise me if someone has been disallowed mileage expenses because they are going to their normal place of work but prosecuted for business use when they only had commuting insurance. Both for the same journey.

[Sheepshanks]

Wildfire said:

I am very bemused at their behaviour.

I wonder why some police officer still behave like this? Many ordinary folks only encounter with the police will be over traffic matters and my view of the police is still coloured by encounters with absolute aholes of coppers 30 yrs ago.

[Sheepshanks]

Wildfire said:

I'm a contractor that works for a company with multiple clients.

"Contractor" and "company with multiple clients" would both seem to merit Class 1 business use.

It might vary but across my family with cars, it doesn't cost any more. My daughter got a refund when she amended he policy mid-year to add it.

If you nip out to get something during the day, get asked by your company to do a day at another site etc etc then all require class 1.

[55palfers]

If OP had fully comp wouldn't he be covered for 3P risks regardless?

[mjb1]

I thought the police database only showed if a vehicle was insured or not, and nothing more? So they wouldn't know what class of insurance you had, whether it was SDP or included commuting, or even the policy holders/insured drivers names?

Maybe this has been added recently, and that's why there seems to be a crackdown on it, or maybe he was just bluffing to see if you'd crack?

[Aretnap]

55palfers said:

If OP had fully comp wouldn't he be covered for 3P risks regardless?

No.

[covboy]

I've just been through this with my insurance company. I've just changed from being "employed" to "self employed" however I'm still working at my previous employers location (It's a long story) I explained this to the insurance people and was told that as long as it was to a single place of employment "commuting" would still apply. The only change they did on my policy was to change from "employed" to a description of what my job is - They said there was no provision for adding "self employed" I assume that only comes up with a business type policy

[Wildfire]

Thanks, I'll look into the insurance situation.

As I said before, it was more about why he kept me there trying to get me to phone my insurance company and carried on about crushing my bike. I've never had car or bike gone over so thoroughly, it was almost as if they were looking for something and when the bike was clean trying hard to pin something, anything on me.

I've had mixed experiences with the police, maybe 25% positive the rest negative, especially traffic officers. One tried very hard to get my brother to admit he was speeding after a car turned right into him on his bike, he had a broken collar bone, was going into shock, swaying and was about to pass out. She wouldn't le me help him and just carried on asking how fast he was going, whilst I was trying to get him to sit in the car and take him to hospital.

[Atomic12C]

Wildfire said:

I was filtering at around 10mph beside standstill traffic.

Were you filtering past traffic by crossing a solid line?
Or past a pedestrian crossing or near to a road island?
Or even filtering too close to traffic, not offering much room for error?

I guess if you were they'd pull you up on that and not beat around the bush.

[Sheepshanks]

covboy said:

I've just been through this with my insurance company. I've just changed from being "employed" to "self employed" however I'm still working at my previous employers location (It's a long story) I explained this to the insurance people and was told that as long as it was to a single place of employment "commuting" would still apply. The only change they did on my policy was to change from "employed" to a description of what my job is - They said there was no provision for adding "self employed" I assume that only comes up with a business type policy

Most PHers will be "Company Director" which I always think is particularly odd with car insurance as your actual job could be almost anything.