No insurance - with a bit of a twist
Discussion
brrapp said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
FFS!!! If you drove to work, that's commuting. End of story. Regular or irregular is irrelevant. Use is a restriction, like driving. If the policy is for named drivers, then others can't drive, not even once a year, for 200 yards.
I get your point, but you seem to be missing mine. Most definitions of the word 'commute' state that it is defined as regular trips from your home to your workplace. If it's not a regular trip or isn't just a direct trip from home to work, then it's not commuting.A single trip is not a commute under most definitions of the word.
If I were the OP and was taken to court over this, my defence would be that the police officer misunderstood the situation and assumed he was commuting. He wasn't so therefore was insured.
Edited by brrapp on Tuesday 27th June 13:57
I think most people understand that if you EVER drive to work, you need commuting cover.
If you want a word that's open to debate, try "regular". Hayleys comet is regular, once every 76 years.
There are some interesting points raised in this thread.
I particularly liked the situation about getting pulled dropping your mum/friend down the shops, and them mentioning to the Police that they give you a bit of petrol money for the trouble - If you lot want binary policing, that is driving for hire/reward, outside the scope of most policies and completely worthy of 6 points and years of exuberant premiums, just like the commuting angle.
I know for one what I (and my passengers) will be doing in any future stops - Providing my name, address, date of birth, at a push my insurance company name, and then answering any questions past that as a big, fat, no comment.
While this particular issue doesn't effect me personally, the fact that the plod may want to comb through the fine print of my insurance policy looking to trip me up on any potential errors and then punish me to the same extent as simply not bothering to arrange any insurance at all in no way inspires any sort of confidence in having a ‘friendly’ chat with the officers, or providing any information apart from the bare minimum.
I particularly liked the situation about getting pulled dropping your mum/friend down the shops, and them mentioning to the Police that they give you a bit of petrol money for the trouble - If you lot want binary policing, that is driving for hire/reward, outside the scope of most policies and completely worthy of 6 points and years of exuberant premiums, just like the commuting angle.
I know for one what I (and my passengers) will be doing in any future stops - Providing my name, address, date of birth, at a push my insurance company name, and then answering any questions past that as a big, fat, no comment.
While this particular issue doesn't effect me personally, the fact that the plod may want to comb through the fine print of my insurance policy looking to trip me up on any potential errors and then punish me to the same extent as simply not bothering to arrange any insurance at all in no way inspires any sort of confidence in having a ‘friendly’ chat with the officers, or providing any information apart from the bare minimum.
279 said:
I particularly liked the situation about getting pulled dropping your mum/friend down the shops, and them mentioning to the Police that they give you a bit of petrol money for the trouble - If you lot want binary policing, that is driving for hire/reward, outside the scope of most policies and completely worthy of 6 points and years of exuberant premiums, just like the commuting angle.
It's emphatically not driving for hire or reward provided the money is just a reasonable contribution to the running costs of the car and you're not actually making a profit from the journey. If you read the small print of your policy you should find a clause which says something to that effect - and in the unlikely event that you don't section 150 of the Road Traffic Act explicitly says that such car-sharing arrangements are not to be treated as driving for hire or reward. (And unlike the MIB agreements etc, that one actually does modify the terms of your policy).Edited by Aretnap on Tuesday 27th June 19:17
279 said:
Can anybody confirm that it is usual for the police to go through such fine details as whether or not commuting is listed on an insurance policy? Honestly, I am quite stunted that not having commuting listed on a policy is grounds for prosecution for a no insurance offense.
I think it's very common for the average traffic cop to check that the whole of the insurance is correct.I recall the police wording being "is this *person* insured at this *time/date* to drive this *vehicle* for this *purpose*".
Therefore they will ask the driver where they are going/what they are doing and the circumstances might often make it obvious - ie. if they live in Southampton and are stopped in Bristol at 2pm wearing a suit and with box of sales brochures on the back seat it might be tricky to say they are commuting to their office in Portsmouth.
JayM85 said:
ANPR flagged for no insurance or tax as he'd just sorted it out the night before - he was able to show his email for tax on his phone, but his insurance company take "up to" 48 hours to email through amended documents so he couldn't show those - the officer rang the company who confirmed he had insured the vehicle, but then said he isn't insured for commuting - they then added commuting on there and then for him so he was able to keep the car/drive home.
JayM85 said:
(The officer's notes do state that he seemed genuinely shocked and believes it was an honest mistake).
Technically bang to rights, but I have to question whether this prosecution is in the public interest. I doubt that the fine will cover the administrative costs and I am not at all sure I want to pay taxes to prosecute an honest mistake which was easily rectified at the roadside. Is it possible (unlikely) that his work insurance covered him third party?
20 years ago, my father had a funky policy on the fleet which would allow employees to drive other people's cars third party.
Also, and I know this will not happen today, but in a case like this our broker would back date the paper work.
20 years ago, my father had a funky policy on the fleet which would allow employees to drive other people's cars third party.
Also, and I know this will not happen today, but in a case like this our broker would back date the paper work.
otolith said:
JayM85 said:
ANPR flagged for no insurance or tax as he'd just sorted it out the night before - he was able to show his email for tax on his phone, but his insurance company take "up to" 48 hours to email through amended documents so he couldn't show those - the officer rang the company who confirmed he had insured the vehicle, but then said he isn't insured for commuting - they then added commuting on there and then for him so he was able to keep the car/drive home.
JayM85 said:
(The officer's notes do state that he seemed genuinely shocked and believes it was an honest mistake).
Technically bang to rights, but I have to question whether this prosecution is in the public interest. I doubt that the fine will cover the administrative costs and I am not at all sure I want to pay taxes to prosecute an honest mistake which was easily rectified at the roadside. Insurance co amended straight away and he was allowed to continue the journey yet the Jobsworth copper has still reported him? A conviction in court is supposed to be in the public interest. Perfect example of bad policing and why motorists are Alienated against them.
I would plead not guilty on the basis that it's not a permanent place of work. It's really his only hope.
A girl I know was reported for no insurance as she thought her dad was supposed to have sorted it out (he told her he had only he'd forgotten) and she got away with it, The worst defence ever!
I would plead not guilty on the basis that it's not a permanent place of work. It's really his only hope.
A girl I know was reported for no insurance as she thought her dad was supposed to have sorted it out (he told her he had only he'd forgotten) and she got away with it, The worst defence ever!
279 said:
I particularly liked the situation about getting pulled dropping your mum/friend down the shops, and them mentioning to the Police that they give you a bit of petrol money for the trouble - If you lot want binary policing, that is driving for hire/reward, outside the scope of most policies and completely worthy of 6 points and years of exuberant premiums, just like the commuting angle.
No it's not, and is covered under all normal car policies within the car sharing wording, if you check your policy. Receiving petrol money for giving mum a lift to the shops or a colleague a lift to work is not hire & reward. Hire and reward is about the intention to make a profit I suspect there are many motorists who use their car to get to and from their place of work insured SDP only, not realising this could be an issue.
I know I used my own car for commuting for many years until I got a company car and was never covered specifically for commuting, didn't even think about it at the time. Lucky to never have had an accident or get stopped in hindsight.
I know I used my own car for commuting for many years until I got a company car and was never covered specifically for commuting, didn't even think about it at the time. Lucky to never have had an accident or get stopped in hindsight.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
brrapp said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
FFS!!! If you drove to work, that's commuting. End of story. Regular or irregular is irrelevant. Use is a restriction, like driving. If the policy is for named drivers, then others can't drive, not even once a year, for 200 yards.
I get your point, but you seem to be missing mine. Most definitions of the word 'commute' state that it is defined as regular trips from your home to your workplace. If it's not a regular trip or isn't just a direct trip from home to work, then it's not commuting.A single trip is not a commute under most definitions of the word.
If I were the OP and was taken to court over this, my defence would be that the police officer misunderstood the situation and assumed he was commuting. He wasn't so therefore was insured.
Edited by brrapp on Tuesday 27th June 13:57
Its origin can be traced back to the railways in the mid nineteenth century. Regular (i.e. daily) travellers from the burgeoning suburbs were granted reduced or 'commuted' fares.*
Commutation in this context is analogous to a commuted sentence (for a criminal offence).
* They are still with us, just under a different moniker: season tickets.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think most people understand that if you EVER drive to work, you need commuting cover.
I beg to differ that 'most people' share your view. This thread is proof that that there is a fair degree of confusion/doubt.The key question is whether insurance companies use the dictionary defintion or substitute a narrower one of their own.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you want a word that's open to debate, try "regular". Hayleys comet is regular, once every 76 years.
You appear to be using phonetics. The normally accepted spelling of the name of the man who predicted its orbit is (Edmund) Halley.Btw, the correct term for its appearances is periodic rather than regular.
FiF said:
If it's a regular journey, the sole purpose of which is to take a family member to work, is that domestic or commuting? It's certainly not a pleasure. 
It's commuting* according to this insurer - http://www.admiral.com/car-insurance/advice/which-...Likewise if you drive your car to the local railway station and park it there while you take the train to your work place.
* It's clearly the purpose of the regular journey that counts rather than who the actual worker may be.
A one-off situation which could easily potentially catch somebody out is if they have SD&P cover as they normally only ever travel to work by train.
However there is a one-day rail strike and taking the day off is not an option. How many people might forget to check/upgrade their cover for just one day out of 365?
Red Devil said:
FiF said:
If it's a regular journey, the sole purpose of which is to take a family member to work, is that domestic or commuting? It's certainly not a pleasure.
It's commuting* according to this insurer - http://www.admiral.com/car-insurance/advice/which-...Likewise if you drive your car to the local railway station and park it there while you take the train to your work place.
* It's clearly the purpose of the regular journey that counts rather than who the actual worker may be.
I could be retired, and drive my son to work each morning, on my way to the gym or library. Giving a someone else a lift to work is not commuting by any stretch of the English language.
So unless Admiral put that question wording on their proposal form, "do you use your vehicle to drive to work or to drive someone else to work," they are stuffed.
I would imagine that any increase in risk arises from the making of a 'daily' journey in the rush hour with the potential pressure of maybe being late. The occasional journey due to a train strike, or to deliver a relative to their place of work, is not in the same league, and so should not require commuting cover.
speedking31 said:
I would imagine that any increase in risk arises from the making of a 'daily' journey in the rush hour with the potential pressure of maybe being late. The occasional journey due to a train strike, or to deliver a relative to their place of work, is not in the same league, and so should not require commuting cover.
Still a higher risk that someone who says they don't commute, and never does. You could use that argument for a young driver who isn't included driving a couple of times a year. But no one would expect that to be covered. Plus how do you establish it's a one off. Of course it's a one off when you get caught. Every drink driver I've ever met got caught on the only occasion they ever did it!
I used to work in a department that handled police enquiries for roadside stops.
If we ever had a case of a customer that was driving on the incorrect class of use and no charge was applied, we'd always inform the officer that we would have provided cover with no charge.
Not sure if it has been mentioned in this thread already, but has he had a chat with the insurance company directly? They might look to provide indemnity cover.
They've obviously changed the vehicle over, was there not a discussion or option at that point to change the class of use?
If we ever had a case of a customer that was driving on the incorrect class of use and no charge was applied, we'd always inform the officer that we would have provided cover with no charge.
Not sure if it has been mentioned in this thread already, but has he had a chat with the insurance company directly? They might look to provide indemnity cover.
They've obviously changed the vehicle over, was there not a discussion or option at that point to change the class of use?
FiF said:
If it's already been said then apologies but my take on this is.
It's an absolute offence, so therefore a guilty verdict is most likely.
As for sentencing, I'd give him an absolute discharge. It's a genuine misunderstanding of the rules and/or paperwork error. Prosecution appear to have made errors on their side. Whilst it's not law they cancel each other out in my personal opinion fwiw. He's suffered enough and won't make that mistake again, he'd tried to do it right, tax insurance etc, the checking systems couldn't keep pace, not his fault.
Personally I would go for special reasons not to endorse, its the points you dont want, the fine doesn't matter.It's an absolute offence, so therefore a guilty verdict is most likely.
As for sentencing, I'd give him an absolute discharge. It's a genuine misunderstanding of the rules and/or paperwork error. Prosecution appear to have made errors on their side. Whilst it's not law they cancel each other out in my personal opinion fwiw. He's suffered enough and won't make that mistake again, he'd tried to do it right, tax insurance etc, the checking systems couldn't keep pace, not his fault.
I have had both in court, an absolute discharge for speeding but I still got 3 points, could have gone for special reasons as well but didn't want to push it.
I also didn't get any points for no insurance due to my solicitor arguing "special reasons" about 20 odd years ago but got a £50 fine though, even though I caused a gas bottle van to crash into the side of me after I pulled out on it in a car with 3 flat tyres and no bonnet. I was removing the engine and was just turning it round in the side road outside my house, never intended to drive it any distance. Apparently the tyres went down in the accident and there was no obvious offence for driving without a bonnet. My solicitor was a star in that one.
Iambatman said:
I used to work in a department that handled police enquiries for roadside stops.
If we ever had a case of a customer that was driving on the incorrect class of use and no charge was applied, we'd always inform the officer that we would have provided cover with no charge.
That doesn't mean they covered though. You might add my mum on as a driver for no charge, or even give a reduction. But if she was stopped whilst driving my car and she wasn't a named driver, she would be uninsured. If we ever had a case of a customer that was driving on the incorrect class of use and no charge was applied, we'd always inform the officer that we would have provided cover with no charge.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Red Devil said:
FiF said:
If it's a regular journey, the sole purpose of which is to take a family member to work, is that domestic or commuting? It's certainly not a pleasure.
It's commuting* according to this insurer - http://www.admiral.com/car-insurance/advice/which-...Likewise if you drive your car to the local railway station and park it there while you take the train to your work place.
* It's clearly the purpose of the regular journey that counts rather than who the actual worker may be.
I could be retired, and drive my son to work each morning, on my way to the gym or library. Giving a someone else a lift to work is not commuting by any stretch of the English language.
So unless Admiral put that question wording on their proposal form, "do you use your vehicle to drive to work or to drive someone else to work," they are stuffed.
Twigboy, as far as I'm concerned you're pissing into the wind with your argument which relies on your interpretation of the word commuting as opposed to what the insurance provider and/or justice system use.
Have looked on ombudsman site to see if they have a ruling, only one found so far they gave the ruling, after appeal that someone en route home from shops was still commuting as the journey has originally started out from work. Heavily simplified version of events. Will keep looking.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That doesn't mean they covered though. You might add my mum on as a driver for no charge, or even give a reduction. But if she was stopped whilst driving my car and she wasn't a named driver, she would be uninsured.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. By adding 'my mum' as a driver for no cost she is therefore a named driver and would be insured.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff