No insurance - with a bit of a twist
Discussion
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. FiF said:
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.
That's an interesting one as you could say that any journey goes between home and work if you don't take account of any stops along the way.My route this morning was:
Home to school
School to swimming pool
Pool to petrol station
Petrol station to supermarket
Supermarket to work
All separated by a stop of at least 5 mins and up to 45 minutes
I wonder which parts of that would count as "commuting"?
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. In short it needs to be clarified, for the record my company gives no definition I can find anywhere in the policy docs. I have it on my cover as I regularly give someone a lift to/from work even when I'm going somewhere else. Only makes sense to do so.
boyse7en said:
FiF said:
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.
That's an interesting one as you could say that any journey goes between home and work if you don't take account of any stops along the way.My route this morning was:
Home to school
School to swimming pool
Pool to petrol station
Petrol station to supermarket
Supermarket to work
All separated by a stop of at least 5 mins and up to 45 minutes
I wonder which parts of that would count as "commuting"?
Just to be clearly totally unreasonable and be quite silly, all the places you list are someone's place of work, albeit not yours.
QuickQuack said:
Since neither commuting nor business use add much, if anything, to a policy, why don't standard insurance policies for consumers just include all fecking driving? Why on earth is there such a distinction in the first place since it makes eff all difference to cost but can mean that some poor sod gets screwed over on a technicality? This is one thing that really boils my piss about car insurance. I'm not talking about fleet policies, company cars etc, only policies sold direct to consumers to insure their own vehicles (not forgetting bikes obviously).
I totally agree.I half reckon that these clauses - use for business, commuting etc, are merely there to give reason as an excuse to pay out.
While I agree there is more risk of an accident when "commuting" , you could just as easily be driving into town every day at 8:30am, same as all of the other people, except you're going to the post office rather than to work.
The comparison to taxi / delivery drivers etc, is comparable IMO.
It's EXPECTED to drive to work, where as having the legal cover in place to carry 3+ random passengers is very different.
From reading the OP , sounds like the poor guy has been totally screwed over. The copper in question is a jobsworth.
In an accident there would have simply been an uplift (but since has been discussed there is no price difference) to include commuting.
Thing is, what's to say commuting doesn't add to the premium of anyone on their books?
For all anyone knows, certainly until someone actually in the industry comments, "commuting" is another weight added to a score which may or may not push the policyholder over into another premium loading, band, or it may not even be available full stop depending on a variety of factors. I recall not being able to get Class 1 Business Use on an insurance policy simply because the insurers flat out did not support it, for whatever reason.
Commuting might add something to one person's policy, someone who who has a borderline risk profile, and nothing to another person's - who is as safe as houses statistically, insured with the same company and the same underwriter.
There is some argument to a zero-increase option being made automatically provisioned, or given more leeway after a Police stop, or whatever, but the fact remains that substantively the OP's BIL simply was not insured at the time of the stop, he wasn't "a little bit insured".
I don't think anyone could argue that a non-zero increase to premium from adding commuting cover should be retrospectively treated by the Police as if they "would've got it had they known they could", because the policyholder could simply have decided they didn't want to pay the extra for it, no matter how small it is. Plenty of people will chance their arm with substandard cover, if it means saving some money.
For all anyone knows, certainly until someone actually in the industry comments, "commuting" is another weight added to a score which may or may not push the policyholder over into another premium loading, band, or it may not even be available full stop depending on a variety of factors. I recall not being able to get Class 1 Business Use on an insurance policy simply because the insurers flat out did not support it, for whatever reason.
Commuting might add something to one person's policy, someone who who has a borderline risk profile, and nothing to another person's - who is as safe as houses statistically, insured with the same company and the same underwriter.
There is some argument to a zero-increase option being made automatically provisioned, or given more leeway after a Police stop, or whatever, but the fact remains that substantively the OP's BIL simply was not insured at the time of the stop, he wasn't "a little bit insured".
I don't think anyone could argue that a non-zero increase to premium from adding commuting cover should be retrospectively treated by the Police as if they "would've got it had they known they could", because the policyholder could simply have decided they didn't want to pay the extra for it, no matter how small it is. Plenty of people will chance their arm with substandard cover, if it means saving some money.
QuickQuack said:
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.
Why are you making this up?My cheapest insurance quote for Social, Domestic and Pleasure including Commuting was £90 more than my cheapest quote for the same including Business use.
I don't know if £90 is your definition of 'same cost', but I think that there is a difference between £450 and £540. Well, it was on my credit card statement, not yours so I reckon the difference is relevant to me.
Jimmy Recard said:
QuickQuack said:
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.
Why are you making this up?My cheapest insurance quote for Social, Domestic and Pleasure including Commuting was £90 more than my cheapest quote for the same including Business use.
I don't know if £90 is your definition of 'same cost', but I think that there is a difference between £450 and £540. Well, it was on my credit card statement, not yours so I reckon the difference is relevant to me.
It may be that, as someone suggested, those factors don't add anything significant to my risk profile, but would to that for others. Business class 3 definitely would add a significant amount.
As always it all depends.
Durzel said:
There is some argument to a zero-increase option being made automatically provisioned, or given more leeway after a Police stop, or whatever, but the fact remains that substantively the OP's BIL simply was not insured at the time of the stop, he wasn't "a little bit insured".
So are you telling me that the insurer would not have paid out 3rd party damages?He was insured. Should have said "Oh I'm on the way to a job interview".
FiF said:
But equally anecdotally, adding commuting and business class 1 added nothing to mine.
It may be that, as someone suggested, those factors don't add anything significant to my risk profile, but would to that for others. Business class 3 definitely would add a significant amount.
As always it all depends.
Hence my point. The previous poster claimed that it costs nothing and therefore was pointless.It may be that, as someone suggested, those factors don't add anything significant to my risk profile, but would to that for others. Business class 3 definitely would add a significant amount.
As always it all depends.
For me, clearly the insurance companies felt it represented a higher risk and adjusted premiums in accordance with that.
I've never claimed it increases the price for everyone, I'm claiming it increases the price and risk for some people. As such I wouldn't want to abolish it, as was suggested. That would mean that every person of similar risk profile to me would have to pay extra for business use whether they want it or not.
Jimmy Recard said:
FiF said:
But equally anecdotally, adding commuting and business class 1 added nothing to mine.
It may be that, as someone suggested, those factors don't add anything significant to my risk profile, but would to that for others. Business class 3 definitely would add a significant amount.
As always it all depends.
Hence my point. The previous poster claimed that it costs nothing and therefore was pointless.It may be that, as someone suggested, those factors don't add anything significant to my risk profile, but would to that for others. Business class 3 definitely would add a significant amount.
As always it all depends.
For me, clearly the insurance companies felt it represented a higher risk and adjusted premiums in accordance with that.
I've never claimed it increases the price for everyone, I'm claiming it increases the price and risk for some people. As such I wouldn't want to abolish it, as was suggested. That would mean that every person of similar risk profile to me would have to pay extra for business use whether they want it or not.
FiF said:
One thing I found, the AA offers S,D,P and includes commuting automatically.
That wasn't much good to me as the AA's quote for that was more than the one I got for Business use anyway 
But yes, clearly some insurers include commuting on SDP policies. My point was just that this will not be the case for every insurer and every customer. Clearly I don't fit the risk profile that AA wants. This is not the same for every driver, that's all I wanted to say with my first post.
xjay1337 said:
So are you telling me that the insurer would not have paid out 3rd party damages?
He was insured. Should have said "Oh I'm on the way to a job interview".
He was not insured, his insurers would not (Normally) have paid out a claim, as an uninsured driver the claim would go to the MIB. As there is a policy in force on the vehicle the MIB would normally require the Insurer of the vehicle to become an "Article 75 Insurer" and pay the claim out on behalf of the MIB.He was insured. Should have said "Oh I'm on the way to a job interview".
An Insurer paying a claim out under the MIB is by it's very definition paying out due to the driver being uninsured and in the eyes of the law, in such circumstances the offence of no insurance has been commited
It would have been difficult convincing the police officer who stopped him in his employers car park whilst wearing his work uniform that he was on his way to a job interview
boyse7en said:
That's an interesting one as you could say that any journey goes between home and work if you don't take account of any stops along the way.
And here's another hypothetical "what is commuting" question. Assume that I have a car that is insured for full business use including commuting and also have a second "weekend and holiday car" where the insurance specifically excludes business or commuting. What happens if I take the second car for a service on a working day and have a loan car provided by the garage?
Obviously if I take the car to the service place and pick up a loan car and then drive home to pick up my laptop and then drive to the office then the journey to the garage is to take the car for a service thus is SD&P. Anything after that in the loan car is on the garage's policy which should include business/commuting use by customers.
What if the garage is on my way to work and I don't go home in between times but continue to work in the loan car? Is the journey from home to garage part of "commuting" or is it a separate journey as the journey from the garage to the office is done in the loan car?
Edited by douglasb on Wednesday 28th June 20:51
douglasb said:
boyse7en said:
That's an interesting one as you could say that any journey goes between home and work if you don't take account of any stops along the way.
And here's another hypothetical "what is commuting" question. Assume that I have a car that is insured for full business use including commuting and also have a second "weekend and holiday car" where the insurance specifically excludes business or commuting. What happens if I take the second car for a service on a working day and have a loan car provided by the garage?
Obviously if I take the car to the service place and pick up a loan car and then drive home to pick up my laptop and then drive to the office then the journey to the garage is to take the car for a service thus is SD&P. Anything after that in the loan car is on the garage's policy which should include business/commuting use by customers.
What if the garage is on my way to work and I don't go home in between times but continue to work in the loan car? Is the journey from home to garage part of "commuting" or is it a separate journey as the journey from the garage to the office is done in the loan car?
Edited by douglasb on Wednesday 28th June 20:51
xjay1337 said:
So are you telling me that the insurer would not have paid out 3rd party damages?
He was insured. Should have said "Oh I'm on the way to a job interview".
They would've done, yes, and then would've been entitled to try and claw that back from the OP's BIL. Indemnifying him against the risk retrospectively would've been up to them and I'd wager they're only likely to do this in the event of there being no associated claim.. "yeah sure we'll cover that total loss for when the policyholder was commuting even though he didn't tell us he was doing this".He was insured. Should have said "Oh I'm on the way to a job interview".
He wasn't insured for the use at the time, which means he wasn't insured. He had an insurance policy, but it didn't cover that use, just as my insurance doesn't cover me for private hire, even though I'm still driving the car.
As for "on way to job interview", he was from the OP's account in a work uniform...
I have some sympathy for the OP's BIL, who seems to have been a bit ignorant about what "permanent place of work" means, but he could've cleared that up easily by simply calling the insurance company, or erring on the side of caution and getting commuting cover anyway. He chose not to do this, and got caught, and is as bang to rights on it as he would've been if he was taxiing people around, or delivering takeaways "for a mate on the odd occasion", etc.
NDA said:
I drive to my train station to catch the train to work. Is the drive to the station commuting?
It's a part of your commute, so most insurers would say yes.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?NDA said:
I drive to my train station to catch the train to work. Is the drive to the station commuting?
According to Admiral, yes. See my previous post on page 4.Their basis for this seems clear to me. Driving to the station is a component part of your journey to work.
The fact that you switch transport modes en route doesn't give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
I suspect this approach may be common throughout the motor insurance industry.
https://www.confused.com/motor-insurance/get-cover...
That said, the only way to be certain is to check with your insurer.
There are several whose default cover includes commuting with SD&P.
Example - https://www.theaa.com/car-insurance/buy/car-detail...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff