No insurance - with a bit of a twist
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
boyse7en said:
I think the only conclusion to make from all these hypothetical (but very plausible and likely) situations is that commuting cover should be included in every policy. .
Why? There are millions of people who are housewives, retired, or employed but never drive to work. And I mean never. People who work in C London, who wouldn't dream of driving in. If an insurer wants to target them with lower rates to exclude commuting, what's the problem?Reading through the ombudsmen cases there appear to be quite a few complaints where someone has been refused a claim due to no commuting cover, trawling through the history Ombudsmen finds that when they filled in the details on a consolidation site, e.g. confused etc, they had the option to select SDP or SDPC, they just clicked on through the first option and that decision and tge consequences was never properly reviewed at any point, even if they talked to the eventual provider.
Either there has to be that discussion or there has to be a clear explanation of the interpretations online that have to be acknowledged. At the moment that doesn't happen from what I can see.
One suggestion is to make SDPC the standard so people have to deliberately select no commuting and have what that means in plain English.
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.
And also, if the cop isnt seizing his car under s.165 for no insurance then why is he prosecuting. A little bit of tolerance and flexibility required here. Clearly seemed happy enough to let him add commuting at the road side so a bit harsh to then prosecute after the update and driving away.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.
OP what date does the insurance certificate give for the commuting aspect of the policy? They may have added it to the original version for new which would therefore cover him?
pavarotti1980 said:
And also, if the cop isnt seizing his car under s.165 for no insurance then why is he prosecuting. A little bit of tolerance and flexibility required here. Clearly seemed happy enough to let him add commuting at the road side so a bit harsh to then prosecute after the update and driving away.
I believe many forces take the view that seizing the car should be viewed as a way of preventing further uninsured driving, rather than as an additional "punishment" for the uninsured driver. So if cover is arranged at the roadside, or if there's another person in the passenger seat who does have insurance to drive the car, then there's no need to seize it, as there's no risk of further uninsured driving. But it doesn't negate the fact that the driver was uninsured at the time of the stop.Before the s165 power was introduced a cop who caught an uninsured driver often had no option but to give him a ticket and then tell him to drive home - uninsured. The seizure power was introduced primarily to avoid that situation.
Aretnap said:
Before the s165 power was introduced a cop who caught an uninsured driver often had no option but to give him a ticket and then tell him to drive home - uninsured. The seizure power was introduced primarily to avoid that situation.
before 165 seizures came into play it would have proved on the production (or not) of insurance certificate after HO/RT 1 was issued. The 165 stuff came in at the same point that insurance details were contained on PNC allowing for instant information otherwise it was the 7 day wait. I don't get how driving to the train station is commuting, you are driving to a train station, not to work. Suppose you commute on a bicycle but leave it at your girlfriends house, is driving to her house part of the commute, even if you get a morning BJ first. Or what about moving your car onto the road so you can get your bike out of the garage, as previously said, its just an excuse to not pay out given half the chance.
mickmcpaddy said:
I don't get how driving to the train station is commuting, you are driving to a train station, not to work. Suppose you commute on a bicycle but leave it at your girlfriends house, is driving to her house part of the commute, even if you get a morning BJ first. Or what about moving your car onto the road so you can get your bike out of the garage, as previously said, its just an excuse to not pay out given half the chance.
It's a journey you're making every day, during rush hour in both directions, possibly under stress (late for the train, the day's work on your mind, etc). It's easier to think of the train station being your place of work really, since insurance companies don't have differing levels of commuting cover depending on how far your commute actually is (perhaps they should?)
Reading through the replies, one thing has occurred to me. The insurers added the commuting to work part of the cover as soon as he was stopped. Which to me suggests it should have been there from the start, but for whatever reason, was not.
I would say that as the insurers added that at no extra cost, it was part of the policy that should have been included, but wasn't.
As the insurance documents hadn't arrived in the post, the driver did not have the opportunity to fully examine the terminology of the contract.
If his previous cover included commuting, it is reasonable to assume the same level of cover existed on the new policy, and as the documents had yet to arrive, it is reasonable to claim that he was genuinely unaware of the clerical error and would have remained unaware until the documents had arrived.
I'd agree with other posters that it is an absolute offence but there are mitigating circumstances, especially if the old cover included commuting. Since the insurers added commuting, at no cost, I would state that commuting should have been included as when the premium was paid, the cost of the premium included commuting, and a mere clerical error meant it was not; furthermore the driver was unaware of the error as the policy documents had not arrived. In the same way that the insurers had typed in the incorrect address, postcode, vehicle details or whatever. You ask for the correct cover (including commuting) and pay for it, but some lazy data inputter doesn't add that bit of the policy. Or they were some fat heiffer with fat fingers who put the numberplate down as AB678 CDE.
That's a pretty reasonable defence. But I wouldn't predict the decision by the beak as stranger things have happened. Agree with jobsworth copper.
The conversation to the beak will probably go like this: On whatever day I purchased car insurance and paid for it (here are the details) and the cover was to include commuting. I was stopped by the Police as the insurance details had not yet made their way on to their database, and I provided the details of my new insurers to the officer who contacted them. It appears due to a clerical error, the commuting part of the policy had not been included and the error was rectified by my insurers straight away and added the commuting part of the policy. As the documents had yet to arrive in the post, I was unaware of the clerical error resulting in the omission from the policy. Here's the certificate of insurance from my insurers showing the date the vehicle was insured from, the details and the inclusion of commuting as permitted use. If there's anything else the court would like to see, I'm more than happy to provide anything the court wants.
That to me seems a reasonable statement to make. If when the summons comes through the BIL speaks to the clerk to the justices and provides that evidence, the clerk has the ability to accept the clerical error and avoid appearing before the beak. But as usual, the discretion is applied according to attitude, so be polite and say please and thank you.
I'll be interested to know the outcome of this so keep us posted.
I would say that as the insurers added that at no extra cost, it was part of the policy that should have been included, but wasn't.
As the insurance documents hadn't arrived in the post, the driver did not have the opportunity to fully examine the terminology of the contract.
If his previous cover included commuting, it is reasonable to assume the same level of cover existed on the new policy, and as the documents had yet to arrive, it is reasonable to claim that he was genuinely unaware of the clerical error and would have remained unaware until the documents had arrived.
I'd agree with other posters that it is an absolute offence but there are mitigating circumstances, especially if the old cover included commuting. Since the insurers added commuting, at no cost, I would state that commuting should have been included as when the premium was paid, the cost of the premium included commuting, and a mere clerical error meant it was not; furthermore the driver was unaware of the error as the policy documents had not arrived. In the same way that the insurers had typed in the incorrect address, postcode, vehicle details or whatever. You ask for the correct cover (including commuting) and pay for it, but some lazy data inputter doesn't add that bit of the policy. Or they were some fat heiffer with fat fingers who put the numberplate down as AB678 CDE.
That's a pretty reasonable defence. But I wouldn't predict the decision by the beak as stranger things have happened. Agree with jobsworth copper.
The conversation to the beak will probably go like this: On whatever day I purchased car insurance and paid for it (here are the details) and the cover was to include commuting. I was stopped by the Police as the insurance details had not yet made their way on to their database, and I provided the details of my new insurers to the officer who contacted them. It appears due to a clerical error, the commuting part of the policy had not been included and the error was rectified by my insurers straight away and added the commuting part of the policy. As the documents had yet to arrive in the post, I was unaware of the clerical error resulting in the omission from the policy. Here's the certificate of insurance from my insurers showing the date the vehicle was insured from, the details and the inclusion of commuting as permitted use. If there's anything else the court would like to see, I'm more than happy to provide anything the court wants.
That to me seems a reasonable statement to make. If when the summons comes through the BIL speaks to the clerk to the justices and provides that evidence, the clerk has the ability to accept the clerical error and avoid appearing before the beak. But as usual, the discretion is applied according to attitude, so be polite and say please and thank you.
I'll be interested to know the outcome of this so keep us posted.
Carlson W6 said:
Policeman who made the call is a top jobsworth.
Think it was in Scotland where they were targeting shop staff in uniform for this a while ago.Neighbour's brother used to be a traffic cop and he said if he stopped someone during the day they'd often say they were on their way to another branch or the warehouse etc and they virtually never had business cover. So I take it that it is pretty routine to check.
Sorry to go back 4 pages, I meant to reply last night but the thread jumped to a dozen pages whilst I was asleep.
On the subject of when the offence happened, and when the points are given.
If you are facing a ban under the totting up, and the court date is after your first three points have come off your licence, does the court give you points from the date of the offence (and ban you) or from the court date and leave you just under 12 points?
For info (although it was 20 years ago when we were reckless), my wife started her driving career with 5 points for dicking around, and then gradually totted up to 11. (5+3+3). She then appeared in court for a further 3 points for speeding which took her to 14, and the judge let her keep her licence. (Employer went to court with her, it was motorway speeding at night) This effectively meant that when the first 5 came off she was back down to 9 and so had a totting up ban hanging over her for ages. I'm only telling you this because all may not be lost at 12 points.
Don't judge me on the above - youthful exuberance, belief in immortality and idiot friends in the country - lesson learnt though, growing up done and not a point or offence since.
On the subject of when the offence happened, and when the points are given.
If you are facing a ban under the totting up, and the court date is after your first three points have come off your licence, does the court give you points from the date of the offence (and ban you) or from the court date and leave you just under 12 points?
For info (although it was 20 years ago when we were reckless), my wife started her driving career with 5 points for dicking around, and then gradually totted up to 11. (5+3+3). She then appeared in court for a further 3 points for speeding which took her to 14, and the judge let her keep her licence. (Employer went to court with her, it was motorway speeding at night) This effectively meant that when the first 5 came off she was back down to 9 and so had a totting up ban hanging over her for ages. I'm only telling you this because all may not be lost at 12 points.
Don't judge me on the above - youthful exuberance, belief in immortality and idiot friends in the country - lesson learnt though, growing up done and not a point or offence since.
Another example if i may
Husband and wife each have a car. Wife stays home with the kids, has SDP policy on her car, husband is a named driver.
Husband has other car and works full time, has SDP&C policy as the car is used daily for commute to work.
One day husbands car goes into the garage for some work, so uses wifes car for the drive to work, insured or not?
(husband has 3rd party DWC on his policy but it excludes spousal cars so only policy to cover the use would be the wifes)
Husband and wife each have a car. Wife stays home with the kids, has SDP policy on her car, husband is a named driver.
Husband has other car and works full time, has SDP&C policy as the car is used daily for commute to work.
One day husbands car goes into the garage for some work, so uses wifes car for the drive to work, insured or not?
(husband has 3rd party DWC on his policy but it excludes spousal cars so only policy to cover the use would be the wifes)
Julietbravo said:
If you are facing a ban under the totting up, and the court date is after your first three points have come off your licence, does the court give you points from the date of the offence (and ban you) or from the court date and leave you just under 12 points?
You get a totting ban if you get 12 points in any three year period, unless you can persuade the court that a ban would cause exceptional hardship (as it sounds like your wife did). The 3 years are counted from date of offence to date of offence - not date of conviction. So if you had 9 live points at the time of your latest offence, you don't avoid a ban if the court date comes after 3 of them have dropped off.Who_Goes_Blue said:
Another example if i may
Husband and wife each have a car. Wife stays home with the kids, has SDP policy on her car, husband is a named driver.
Husband has other car and works full time, has SDP&C policy as the car is used daily for commute to work.
One day husbands car goes into the garage for some work, so uses wifes car for the drive to work, insured or not?
(husband has 3rd party DWC on his policy but it excludes spousal cars so only policy to cover the use would be the wifes)
I believe the husband would not be covered.Husband and wife each have a car. Wife stays home with the kids, has SDP policy on her car, husband is a named driver.
Husband has other car and works full time, has SDP&C policy as the car is used daily for commute to work.
One day husbands car goes into the garage for some work, so uses wifes car for the drive to work, insured or not?
(husband has 3rd party DWC on his policy but it excludes spousal cars so only policy to cover the use would be the wifes)
Who_Goes_Blue said:
Another example if i may
Husband and wife each have a car. Wife stays home with the kids, has SDP policy on her car, husband is a named driver.
Husband has other car and works full time, has SDP&C policy as the car is used daily for commute to work.
One day husbands car goes into the garage for some work, so uses wifes car for the drive to work, insured or not?
(husband has 3rd party DWC on his policy but it excludes spousal cars so only policy to cover the use would be the wifes)
Not insured.Husband and wife each have a car. Wife stays home with the kids, has SDP policy on her car, husband is a named driver.
Husband has other car and works full time, has SDP&C policy as the car is used daily for commute to work.
One day husbands car goes into the garage for some work, so uses wifes car for the drive to work, insured or not?
(husband has 3rd party DWC on his policy but it excludes spousal cars so only policy to cover the use would be the wifes)
Wife's insurance covers social, domestic and pleasure use by either driver. The hubby commuting to work doesn't fall into any of those categories.
Hubby's DOC cover would normally cover him to drive other cars for the same purposes as he can drive his own car (in my experience - though it would depend on the exact terms of the policy), but if it doesn't extend to his wife's car then it's irrelevant.
The lesson is that if you think there's any chance that you'll want to drive a car to work, tick the box that says "commuting". It will likely cost an extra 50p, if that, so it's not exactly going to break the bank.
(I tend to agree with the point that it would not hurt insurers to make this clearer, given that quite a few people are evidently confused. I've always thought that if either driver has disclosed that they are employed but the customer has ticked SDP only it might be best to have a pop up box which says something along the lines of "you have not selected commuting cover. This means that driving to work will not be covered under your policy, even if you only do it occasionally. Are you sure Yes/No")
TwigtheWonderkid said:
FiF said:
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.
The justice system rely on reasonableness. It is reasonable to class travelling to work as commuting. It is not reasonable to think you are commuting if you drive someone else to work. They are the ones commuting, and they commute by poncing a lift off dad or whoever. KevinCamaroSS said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
FiF said:
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.
The justice system rely on reasonableness. It is reasonable to class travelling to work as commuting. It is not reasonable to think you are commuting if you drive someone else to work. They are the ones commuting, and they commute by poncing a lift off dad or whoever. pavarotti1980 said:
If it doesnt cost to have commuting as an extra (as in this case) then surely the sensible thing for the industry would be to have all SDP cover including commuting. I am sure my first few policies after passing my test didnt even have the option, it was SDP or Business
It doesn't even cost more for most people to have Class 1 business. All our cars have it, and the "kids" (grown up now) are named on their Mum's policy just in case they need to borrow her car and even they're covered Class 1 (that's with LV= and again, no extra cost).TwigtheWonderkid said:
Why? There are millions of people who are housewives, retired, or employed but never drive to work. And I mean never. People who work in C London, who wouldn't dream of driving in. If an insurer wants to target them with lower rates to exclude commuting, what's the problem?
I'm sure there are... but (if what is postulated on here is correct) they could be not insured if they have to take husband/son/daughter into work one day a year for some reason - one car in for a service, going out after work, etc.Many car policies include 90 day european cover by default, which I will never use, as won't millions of other drivers, but there is no option to remove it. So the principle of including cover that isn't needed is already there.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff