No insurance - with a bit of a twist
Discussion
This has just caused me to double-check mine to and it says the following:
"Use for social domestic and pleasure purposes plus use by the policyholder in connection with the businesses of the policyholder."
It surprised me that although I have business use (I occasionally use my own car to go to customer sites, perhaps once a month or so) it doesn't specifically state 'commuting'. Should I check with my insurer or does 'business use' include commuting?
"Use for social domestic and pleasure purposes plus use by the policyholder in connection with the businesses of the policyholder."
It surprised me that although I have business use (I occasionally use my own car to go to customer sites, perhaps once a month or so) it doesn't specifically state 'commuting'. Should I check with my insurer or does 'business use' include commuting?
BertBert said:
So slightly OT, if the ins co is bound by law to pay out 3rd party liability anyway, how does that count as not insured?
The law says you have to have an insurance policy which covers your use of the vehicle. If your policy says that you're only covered to do X and you're actually doing Y then you're not covered by an insurance policy and you're breaking the law. Simple as that really.Separate to that, there are various provisions for compensating victims of uninsured drivers which mean that either the the MIB or the insurer with the nearest connection to the car can be required to pay out when the driver is uninsured. But they don't create an alternative policy for you, nor do they modify the terms of your own insurance policy so that it covers you to do Y as well as X. Basically they're there to protect other people from the consequences of your uninsured driving - not to protect you from its consequences.
In the last resort the MIB will always compensate 3rd parties harmed by uninsured drivers, so if the courts followed the logic that the victims will get compensated anyway so it's not really driving without insurance, it would mean that it was impossible to drive uninsured and nobody could ever be convicted of it. Clearly that's not the intention behind the law.
Funk said:
This has just caused me to double-check mine to and it says the following:
"Use for social domestic and pleasure purposes plus use by the policyholder in connection with the businesses of the policyholder."
It surprised me that although I have business use (I occasionally use my own car to go to customer sites, perhaps once a month or so) it doesn't specifically state 'commuting'. Should I check with my insurer or does 'business use' include commuting?
Commuting is a sub-class of business use - you're using the car to get to the (main) place where you do business, in other words you're using it in connection with your business. So it wouldn't normally need to be listed separately on a policy which covers more general business use."Use for social domestic and pleasure purposes plus use by the policyholder in connection with the businesses of the policyholder."
It surprised me that although I have business use (I occasionally use my own car to go to customer sites, perhaps once a month or so) it doesn't specifically state 'commuting'. Should I check with my insurer or does 'business use' include commuting?
If in doubt it never hurts to double check but that's how I read it anyway.
Aretnap said:
The law says you have to have an insurance policy which covers your use of the vehicle. If your policy says that you're only covered to do X and you're actually doing Y then you're not covered by an insurance policy and you're breaking the law. Simple as that really.
It should be simple as that but it isn't, is it? You are still doing X when the insurance company claims you're doing Y - just driving the sodding car. What's different is the purpose of doing X, not the fact of doing X. That's why insurance should be for driving as a whole without any specified purpose unless you're doing it commercially, eg as a taxi, minicab etc. I know the current status so I don't need any lessons and I do have the correct level of cover on all my vehicles, but it does confuse the hell out of a very large proportion of the population completely unnecessarily, and for what? The cost is the same so there's no financial loss or benefit to anyone. It's just an added complication purely for the sake of having a complication; nothing more. Maybe it mattered in the dim and distant past but now that it makes bugger all difference to cost but all the difference in the situation described by the OP, it's time that the distinctions between commuting/business/SD&P are confined to history.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.
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.
QuickQuack said:
It should be simple as that but it isn't, is it? You are still doing X when the insurance company claims you're doing Y - just driving the sodding car. What's different is the purpose of doing X, not the fact of doing X. That's why insurance should be for driving as a whole without any specified purpose unless you're doing it commercially, eg as a taxi, minicab etc. I know the current status so I don't need any lessons and I do have the correct level of cover on all my vehicles, but it does confuse the hell out of a very large proportion of the population completely unnecessarily, and for what? The cost is the same so there's no financial loss or benefit to anyone. It's just an added complication purely for the sake of having a complication; nothing more. Maybe it mattered in the dim and distant past but now that it makes bugger all difference to cost but all the difference in the situation described by the OP, it's time that the distinctions between commuting/business/SD&P are confined to history.
I can't agree with this. Do you use your vehicle for commuting is not a complicated question. If a question like that confuses someone, they really shouldn't have a licence. Or be allowed out in public without supervision!As for cost, some insurers charge more, some don't, and some insurers have special schemes for the retired that will not give any kind of business or commuting use at all.
Aretnap said:
BertBert said:
So slightly OT, if the ins co is bound by law to pay out 3rd party liability anyway, how does that count as not insured?
The law says you have to have an insurance policy which covers your use of the vehicle. If your policy says that you're only covered to do X and you're actually doing Y then you're not covered by an insurance policy and you're breaking the law. Simple as that really.Separate to that, there are various provisions for compensating victims of uninsured drivers which mean that either the the MIB or the insurer with the nearest connection to the car can be required to pay out when the driver is uninsured. But they don't create an alternative policy for you, nor do they modify the terms of your own insurance policy so that it covers you to do Y as well as X. Basically they're there to protect other people from the consequences of your uninsured driving - not to protect you from its consequences.
In the last resort the MIB will always compensate 3rd parties harmed by uninsured drivers, so if the courts followed the logic that the victims will get compensated anyway so it's not really driving without insurance, it would mean that it was impossible to drive uninsured and nobody could ever be convicted of it. Clearly that's not the intention behind the law.
This question comes up regularly. And this is the definitive reply.
I have sympathy with the views expressed by some regarding the complication and consequences of missing something which adds no cost.
As for the hang 'em and then flog 'em as it's so easy brigade, a question. Suppose someone has a SDP policy, does it pass the 'This test' * if they are giving someone a lift to the second person's place of work, and then going onto the library or shopping? If it's a one off? If it's a regular arrangement? Do either of these count as commuting? Neither? Both?
As for the hang 'em and then flog 'em as it's so easy brigade, a question. Suppose someone has a SDP policy, does it pass the 'This test' * if they are giving someone a lift to the second person's place of work, and then going onto the library or shopping? If it's a one off? If it's a regular arrangement? Do either of these count as commuting? Neither? Both?
- * 'This test' = Does this policy cover this driver in this vehicle at this time for a journey of this purpose?
FiF said:
I have sympathy with the views expressed by some regarding the complication and consequences of missing something which adds no cost.
As for the hang 'em and then flog 'em as it's so easy brigade, a question. Suppose someone has a SDP policy, does it pass the 'This test' * if they are giving someone a lift to the second person's place of work, and then going onto the library or shopping? If it's a one off? If it's a regular arrangement? Do either of these count as commuting? Neither? Both?
You say "adds no cost". It does add cost with some. It doesn't with others. It's completely unacceptable to some.As for the hang 'em and then flog 'em as it's so easy brigade, a question. Suppose someone has a SDP policy, does it pass the 'This test' * if they are giving someone a lift to the second person's place of work, and then going onto the library or shopping? If it's a one off? If it's a regular arrangement? Do either of these count as commuting? Neither? Both?
- * 'This test' = Does this policy cover this driver in this vehicle at this time for a journey of this purpose?
No one is saying hang 'em and flog 'em. Just charge 'em with no insurance!
Giving someone else a lift to work is pleasure use. Even if you do it every day. In the same way as me giving my mum a lift to the shops is not mincabbing! It would be if a mincab driver took her.
I can't believe that an insurance company would pick up on a single trip to your workplace. I have an MX5 which I only ever use on nice days for fun and which isn't insured for commuting. I've taken it into work on a couple of occasions though, once when I was getting the tyres renewed at lunchtime, once when I was picking my wife up after work to go on a weekend away. I'd argue pretty vehemently if I'd been accused of driving while uninsured if I'd been stopped en route.
Thing is though, it's not down to the insurance company picking it up once, it's down to the interpretation of the copper at the time of the stop and then perhaps whoever reviews his report. If they're having a bad day, and perhaps you argue vehemently and fail the attitude test, ping.
brrapp said:
I can't believe that an insurance company would pick up on a single trip to your workplace. I have an MX5 which I only ever use on nice days for fun and which isn't insured for commuting. I've taken it into work on a couple of occasions though, once when I was getting the tyres renewed at lunchtime, once when I was picking my wife up after work to go on a weekend away. I'd argue pretty vehemently if I'd been accused of driving while uninsured if I'd been stopped en route.
Argue all you like, but you were. You policy doesn't cover you for commuting, and you were commuting. It's pretty binary really. Supposing someone says "my car is insured for me and the wife only. And we're the only two that use the car 99.9% of the time. But twice in the past my son has had to drive. I would argue pretty vehemently if he'd been accused of driving uninsured".
Do you think that's reasonable?
Aretnap said:
Funk said:
This has just caused me to double-check mine to and it says the following:
"Use for social domestic and pleasure purposes plus use by the policyholder in connection with the businesses of the policyholder."
It surprised me that although I have business use (I occasionally use my own car to go to customer sites, perhaps once a month or so) it doesn't specifically state 'commuting'. Should I check with my insurer or does 'business use' include commuting?
Commuting is a sub-class of business use - you're using the car to get to the (main) place where you do business, in other words you're using it in connection with your business. So it wouldn't normally need to be listed separately on a policy which covers more general business use."Use for social domestic and pleasure purposes plus use by the policyholder in connection with the businesses of the policyholder."
It surprised me that although I have business use (I occasionally use my own car to go to customer sites, perhaps once a month or so) it doesn't specifically state 'commuting'. Should I check with my insurer or does 'business use' include commuting?
If in doubt it never hurts to double check but that's how I read it anyway.
"Direct Line's Social, Domestic and Pleasure policy cover includes commuting. This allows you to drive to and from a permanent place of work.
By 'permanent' place of work, we mean a single office, site, location or place of work that you intend to travel to for the duration of your contract of employment.
If you are employed, for example, on a 3 month contract and will only be travelling to one location/site/office during the term of your contract, then Social Domestic & Pleasure is sufficient."
I could see where the OP's mate could've been caught out. DL include commuting in their SD&P by default (which seems pretty sensible to me). Other insurers clearly don't... I was certain I was covered but the OP made me worry for a moment..!
Edited by Funk on Tuesday 27th June 11:42
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You say "adds no cost". It does add cost with some. It doesn't with others. It's completely unacceptable to some.
No one is saying hang 'em and flog 'em. Just charge 'em with no insurance!
Giving someone else a lift to work is pleasure use. Even if you do it every day. In the same way as me giving my mum a lift to the shops is not mincabbing! It would be if a mincab driver took her.
The hang 'em and flog 'em comment was in jest, rather than a literal accusation, but that's obviously passed you by. But it was in relation to people saying it's black and white with no shades of grey or need for interpretation. Hey ho.No one is saying hang 'em and flog 'em. Just charge 'em with no insurance!
Giving someone else a lift to work is pleasure use. Even if you do it every day. In the same way as me giving my mum a lift to the shops is not mincabbing! It would be if a mincab driver took her.
But then your Mum blurts out to the copper that you're a good boy giving her a lift and never ask for anything towards the petrol but she gives you something anyway.
Not covered for 'this' purpose. Ping.
Personally I'd agree that in my earlier example it's not commuting, because the driver is not commuting, but then that's just my worthless opinion. 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.
I think you are over complicating one of the few things in insurance that's clear cut. The use of the vehicle is on the certificate, just like the drivers. It's that important.
Commuting - you either have it, or you don't, or you have full business use that covers commuting and more. If you don't have it, it's ludicrous to think that it's covered on very rare occasions. It isn't covered at all!
Commuting - you either have it, or you don't, or you have full business use that covers commuting and more. If you don't have it, it's ludicrous to think that it's covered on very rare occasions. It isn't covered at all!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
brrapp said:
I can't believe that an insurance company would pick up on a single trip to your workplace. I have an MX5 which I only ever use on nice days for fun and which isn't insured for commuting. I've taken it into work on a couple of occasions though, once when I was getting the tyres renewed at lunchtime, once when I was picking my wife up after work to go on a weekend away. I'd argue pretty vehemently if I'd been accused of driving while uninsured if I'd been stopped en route.
Argue all you like, but you were. You policy doesn't cover you for commuting, and you were commuting. It's pretty binary really. Supposing someone says "my car is insured for me and the wife only. And we're the only two that use the car 99.9% of the time. But twice in the past my son has had to drive. I would argue pretty vehemently if he'd been accused of driving uninsured".
Do you think that's reasonable?
brrapp said:
It's not quite as binary as you make out. What if I drive my car into town for a newspaper, park up, buy my paper then while I'm in town anyway, pop round the corner to my workplace for an hour or two then travel on to visit my neighbour who lives near me before driving home later from my neighbour's house? Commuting? Arguably not if it's not done on a regular basis. I seldom drive anywhere for a single purpose, mostly have several chores to carry out every time I venture into town. I think any insurance company would have a hard time declaring me uninsured on the basis of a single journey during part of which I visited my workplace. I'm quite willing to risk it. Different maybe if I was making the same journey on a regular basis.
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. 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
At the end of the day you can argue with the cop that pulls you over, or the court, but it is a matter of fact. You are either insured for that journey, in whichever form it takes, or you're not. Infrequency, intent, etc all irrelevant - it is an absolute offence.
As far as I know the only legitimate defence against no insurance is as an employee driving a company-insured vehicle, where they were told, or had a reasonable belief that they were insured to drive it. In those instances they would not have sight of the policy to know otherwise, so are not ignorant.
You might have a shout of defending the charge if you had turned up to your offices outside normal working hours to pick something non-work related up, but the burden would still be on you to prove that you weren't driving outwith SD&P purposes. If any aspect of your journey could be attributed to being there in a work capacity (e.g. picking up a laptop in advance of visiting a client the next day, etc) then I think the charge would still stick.
As far as I know the only legitimate defence against no insurance is as an employee driving a company-insured vehicle, where they were told, or had a reasonable belief that they were insured to drive it. In those instances they would not have sight of the policy to know otherwise, so are not ignorant.
brrapp said:
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.
What's to misunderstand? He was stopped outside his work, in his work clothes, turning up to start work.You might have a shout of defending the charge if you had turned up to your offices outside normal working hours to pick something non-work related up, but the burden would still be on you to prove that you weren't driving outwith SD&P purposes. If any aspect of your journey could be attributed to being there in a work capacity (e.g. picking up a laptop in advance of visiting a client the next day, etc) then I think the charge would still stick.
Edited by Durzel on Tuesday 27th June 14:15
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think you are over complicating one of the few things in insurance that's clear cut. The use of the vehicle is on the certificate, just like the drivers. It's that important.
Commuting - you either have it, or you don't, or you have full business use that covers commuting and more. If you don't have it, it's ludicrous to think that it's covered on very rare occasions. It isn't covered at all!
Actually I think you are simply looking at it too simply, basically whether the certificate has a word on it or not, and that your interpretation of that word is correct.Commuting - you either have it, or you don't, or you have full business use that covers commuting and more. If you don't have it, it's ludicrous to think that it's covered on very rare occasions. It isn't covered at all!
What matters is the interpretation by the insurance company and/or the police and courts.
One interpretation I've seen is travelling to a permanent place of work on a normal working day. Said nothing about the place of work of the driver only, though there is a bit about third party liability cover is extended to other occupants of the vehicle using the vehicle for SDP purposes (except driving), no mention of commuting.
Clearly being devil's advocate here, but it's not binary.
Again clearly it's better to have commuting included for the little it costs, always nothing in my experience, just like adding business class 1 costs square root of bugger all, so why not add that too. Closes stable door before someone opens it trying to create trouble. Let's face it have seen some fog being plaited trying to get a conviction. Eg copper stopped a guy driving on a Czech licence. He had insurance. Copper rang up insurance company to see if bloke had told him that he had declared it was on a foreign licence. Insurance company said no he hadn't. Copper said so he's not insured then. Company said he is insured but we need to have a discussion about premium. Copper tried every which way to get them to say he wasn't insured, but no they said he was on cover. Copper pissed off at not being able to seize vehicle. What a git, but you only need to meet someone like that.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff