Employee crashes van in their own time

[Connectors]

NotBenny said:

I don't understand the issue with just going ahead as per normal then?......Leave them to it.

This is PH, someone asks a question, gets a few sensible answer then the idiots start adding in irrelevant stuff to score points and generally derail the thread. Sadly the mods do nothing.

[CoolHands]

They should delete your useless post

[surveyor]

Jimi.K. said:

surveyor said:

gazza285 said:

shovelheadrob said:

surveyor said:

Would it cost much more to add private use? If it does not I would seriously consider doing this, even if he does not tell the staff that they are insured...

I don't know if it's even an option, worth looking into although a bit horse, bolt, door lol!

Might not cost much more for the insurance, but the van drivers all get taxed on the personal use rate, which is £3350 off your personal allowance, as it is seen as a benefit in kind. That might make them grumpy.

Not if they are still not allowed to use it for private use. Insurance is not the decider. With trackers etc. it would not be an issue.

I was forced into taking a company car (a basic ford mondeo) in a previous job, and had no option other than to pay the additional tax as a benefit in kind even though I had another car for personal use. I was told by the company there was no option to get out of paying the BIK as merely having access to the car out of work hours was a benefit and they couldnt guarantee to HMRC that I wasn't using it for personal use. Frustrating at the time, but would have prevented issues like the OPs son is finding.

I think they probably went for the easy option... Commercial rules are subtly different also,

[bobtail4x4]

was he driving the van on "driving other cars" cover?
you may have an out?

[Graveworm]

bobtail4x4 said:

was he driving the van on "driving other cars" cover?
you may have an out?

Most/all driving other car cover has a "With permission" condition.

[Connectors]

CoolHands said:

They should delete your useless post

Ironic.

[over_the_hill]

What was the purpose of the trip when he crashed. Was he going to Screwfix to get new drill bits and other supplies.

[Jasandjules]

shovelheadrob said:

They know that they're not allowed to use them for private/social domestic and pleasure use.

Was this is writing ?

[shovelheadrob]

Jasandjules said:

shovelheadrob said:

They know that they're not allowed to use them for private/social domestic and pleasure use.

Was this is writing ?

To be totally honest I don't know as I've not seen the contracts that he gives them.

[Second Best]

We have a couple of work vans that, while tightly controlled, are insured for social usage by employees too. They're business assets but have always been insured for social usage too. The cynical older employees say it's because the boss wanted to move his daughter to uni but didn't want to pay for a rental van, but for whatever reason it's stuck. I occasionally take one of the vans home and whilst I don't exactly think of it as an excuse for an impromptu visit to my sister (150 miles away), if I get home from work and decide I fancy a takeaway or I need to grab some milk, I'll use the work van.

The unwritten rule is, don't take the piss. If you're going to Tesco or picking up your kid from school, that's fine. If you decide to transport a Mini from Manchester to Southampton, then you're in the st.

[Red Devil]

Graveworm said:

bobtail4x4 said:

was he driving the van on "driving other cars" cover?
you may have an out?

Most/all driving other car cover has a "With permission" condition.

Indeed, but in this case that of itself is unlikely to suffice. The clue is in the name.

See: Laurence v. Davies Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd. (Third Party) [1972] which dealt with this exact point.

The wording in any policy/certificate is crucial. In the above case the word private was absent. Insurers have tightened their clauses and defnitions over time.

I would be very surprised if any DOC cover he may have on his own policy would entitle him to drive a company van (i.e. a commercial vehicle) under any circumstances.

Mine states: The Policyholder may.....also drive a private motor car.....

Quite a few people have made assumptions about motor insurance and come unstuck.

[Graveworm]

Red Devil said:

Indeed, but in this case that of itself is unlikely to suffice. The clue is in the name.

See: Laurence v. Davies Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd. (Third Party) [1972] which dealt with this exact point.

The wording in any policy/certificate is crucial. In the above case the word private was absent. Insurers have tightened their clauses and defnitions over time.

I would be very surprised if any DOC cover he may have on his own policy would entitle him to drive a company van (i.e. a commercial vehicle) under any circumstances.

Mine states: The Policyholder may.....also drive a private motor car.....

Quite a few people have made assumptions about motor insurance and come unstuck.

This is useful, mine says private motor vehicle, do you happen to know what the private means in that context? One of the reasons I got this policy was for the comprehensive using rather than driving other vehicles cover and the lack of a requirement that their insurance was valid. But I must admit I thought the private was the same meaning as private car insurance.

[Rude-boy]

This talk of BIK brings a smile to my face.

I know a company where on the company fleet area couple of very high end German cars. Even the accountant was impressed to find them on the parking lot one night when they chose to do a sweep past to check their client wasn't saying one thing and doing another.

Apparently the boss drives the couple of miles from their house to the office in some beater or other and then picks up one of the company cars to go off to meetings and the like.