One off commute on a classic policy

[dvs_dave]

BertBert said:

If others are over thinking, you must be hard of thinking. The definition is driving to your regular place of work. Not regularly driving to your place of work.

Ha, nice try. Paralysis through analysis, that’s the hole you’re stuck in. Can’t be much fun.

[OutInTheShed]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

OutInTheShed said:

What happens if you drive to a job interview?
Should you have 'business' for that?

No. It's not your job, you're not working, and you're not getting paid.

So is that Social, Domestic or Pleasure?

[Cat]

dvs_dave said:

BertBert said:

If others are over thinking, you must be hard of thinking. The definition is driving to your regular place of work. Not regularly driving to your place of work.

Ha, nice try. Paralysis through analysis, that’s the hole you’re stuck in. Can’t be much fun.

There is more than a little irony in someone accusing others of over thinking when they claim that a vehicle clearly being used for commuting is in fact "being taken for maintenance, and due to unavoidable personal logistic constraints means that a coincidental stop off at work is required. A one-off stop via the workplace to facilitate the upkeep of the vehicle is quite simply not commuting as it’s irregular with respect to the vehicle and the risks it’s insured against."

It is bordering on freeman on the land type nonsense that they are not actually using the vehicle but in fact simply travelling in their conveyance.

Cat

[pocketspring]

OutInTheShed said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

OutInTheShed said:

What happens if you drive to a job interview?
Should you have 'business' for that?

No. It's not your job, you're not working, and you're not getting paid.

So is that Social, Domestic or Pleasure?

I'm going for social on that.

[dvs_dave]

Cat said:

There is more than a little irony in someone accusing others of over thinking when they claim that a vehicle clearly being used for commuting is in fact "being taken for maintenance, and due to unavoidable personal logistic constraints means that a coincidental stop off at work is required. A one-off stop via the workplace to facilitate the upkeep of the vehicle is quite simply not commuting as it’s irregular with respect to the vehicle and the risks it’s insured against."

It is bordering on freeman on the land type nonsense that they are not actually using the vehicle but in fact simply travelling in their conveyance.

Cat

Perhaps. Meanwhile I’ve actually gone and got the job done and was back in time for tea whilst you were still ruminating over your next course of action.

[Cat]

dvs_dave said:

Perhaps. Meanwhile I’ve actually gone and got the job done and was back in time for tea whilst you were still ruminating over your next course of action.

Indeed you have, whilst being uninsured during your commute.

Cat

[TwigtheWonderkid]

dvs_dave said:

The insurance policy is specific to the vehicle, not the driver, and it’s not covered for commuting, which is the added risk associated with the regular use of said vehicle for regular travel to and from work.

You've made that bit up. There's nothing at all in the everyday, non insurance definition of commuting that says it's regular. If I work from home, and go into the office once a year, I commute to the office on that day. By bike/train/bus/car, whatever. Commuting is the act of going to and/or from work. Occasionally or often.

Now the insurance definition is usually to one regular place of work. Not that you do it regularly. But the destination is the regular one. Go to and from two offices and you need class 1 business use.

The OP, driving to work on that morning, is commuting, and he ain't covered for that.

Your argument is no different from saying you can insure your car for you and the wife only, because that's who uses it. But a one off use of the car by your brother is OK because it's not regular, and paying extra to add him is to cover the regular use of the car by people other than you and your wife.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

dvs_dave said:

BertBert said:

If others are over thinking, you must be hard of thinking. The definition is driving to your regular place of work. Not regularly driving to your place of work.

Ha, nice try. Paralysis through analysis, that’s the hole you’re stuck in. Can’t be much fun.

But he's spot on. Can you imagine the conversation at work...

Oh, hi Fred, long time no see. How was the commute this morning, the traffic is awful.

Fred: How dare you! I didn't commute, I only come in once a year. I don't insure my car for commuting and if you're trying to insinuate that I wasn't insured to drive in today, you'd better think again.

Errrr.....you OK Fred??

[OutInTheShed]

pocketspring said:

OutInTheShed said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

OutInTheShed said:

What happens if you drive to a job interview?
Should you have 'business' for that?

No. It's not your job, you're not working, and you're not getting paid.

So is that Social, Domestic or Pleasure?

I'm going for social on that.

Domestic if it's not international?

Pleasure if there's a chance of a free lunch?

[boombang]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Now the insurance definition is usually to one regular place of work. Not that you do it regularly. But the destination is the regular one. Go to and from two offices and you need class 1 business use.

My insurer confirmed I could travel to different offices on different days under my policy but not to different offices on the same commute.

For example I can drive to the Kent office one day, Surrey another then park at a station to take a train to London on another.

As I've said a few times it depends on insurer and is down to how that insurer words things.

[BertBert]

boombang said:

My insurer confirmed I could travel to different offices on different days under my policy but not to different offices on the same commute.

For example I can drive to the Kent office one day, Surrey another then park at a station to take a train to London on another.

As I've said a few times it depends on insurer and is down to how that insurer words things.

Does the policy wording say that too?

[e-honda]

The case law on it is here

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5ec215c12c94...

Seems like everyone got it wrong to at least some extent, the journey to and journey from were both the same essential character and primary purpose so one cannot have been commuting without the other also being

Either he would have been neither covered to travel to or from work because when he decided to go to work that day then the essential character and/or the primary purpose changed from getting the car to and from the garage to getting himself to and from work.
Or the primary purpose remained getting the car to and from the garage, and the essential character of the journey did not change just because he also decided to work that day.

Given there seems to be broad agreement that the return journey was a trip back from the garage and not commuting It is hard to argue the morning journey was commuting.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BertBert said:

boombang said:

My insurer confirmed I could travel to different offices on different days under my policy but not to different offices on the same commute.

For example I can drive to the Kent office one day, Surrey another then park at a station to take a train to London on another.

As I've said a few times it depends on insurer and is down to how that insurer words things.

Does the policy wording say that too?

Indeed. A verbal instruction does not override a written contract. Unless this is what's in the policy wording, I'd be making sure I got written confirmation.

[BertBert]

e-honda said:

The case law on it is here

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5ec215c12c94...

Seems like everyone got it wrong to at least some extent, the journey to and journey from were both the same essential character and primary purpose so one cannot have been commuting without the other also being

Either he would have been neither covered to travel to or from work because when he decided to go to work that day then the essential character and/or the primary purpose changed from getting the car to and from the garage to getting himself to and from work.
Or the primary purpose remained getting the car to and from the garage, and the essential character of the journey did not change just because he also decided to work that day.

[b]Given there seems to be broad agreement that the return journey was a trip back from the garage and not commuting It is hard to argue the morning journey was commuting.{b]

I don't agree that both journeys have to be the same and there's nothing in the referred case that says so.

Even if the OP started with the intron of going to the garage, that changed when he was refused a day off and had to come to his regular place of work to do his job. So I maintain we are still in the same place.

[e-honda]

BertBert said:

I don't agree that both journeys have to be the same and there's nothing in the referred case that says so.

Even if the OP started with the intron of going to the garage, that changed when he was refused a day off and had to come to his regular place of work to do his job. So I maintain we are still in the same place.

Excellent, you have read the case law and we are in agreement the essential primary of the journey home is getting the car home from the garage rather than commuting from work.

I just don't see what is different in the morning other than the incidental differences in timing.

[BertBert]

e-honda said:

Excellent, you have read the case law and we are in agreement the essential primary of the journey home is getting the car home from the garage rather than commuting from work.

I just don't see what is different in the morning other than the incidental differences in timing.

It's not helpful miss-describing what I said. I made no comment on the afternoon journey at all, so please don't claim I did.

The case you referred to may be addressing the same question but the circumstances are very different. I don't need to just the differences. In the OPs situation he clearly made a journey to work which his insurance defines as commuting. If you wish to add purpose in, the purpose of going to his place of work was to do his work. He may have previously had different plans for his day, to be off work, but his boss asked him to turn up and do his work at his regular place of work. He commuted.

[e-honda]

BertBert said:

It's not helpful miss-describing what I said. I made no comment on the afternoon journey at all, so please don't claim I did.

The case you referred to may be addressing the same question but the circumstances are very different. I don't need to just the differences. In the OPs situation he clearly made a journey to work which his insurance defines as commuting. If you wish to add purpose in, the purpose of going to his place of work was to do his work. He may have previously had different plans for his day, to be off work, but his boss asked him to turn up and do his work at his regular place of work. He commuted.

You have stated that the morning and afternoon journies "don't have to be the same" in response to me saying they do have the same essential primary, how is that not making the comment on the return journey. I took that to mean you had an opinion they were not the same, not just same random meaningless comment that the OP could have made other choices.
You stated the morning journey was commuting. If the afternoon one is different then it isn't commuting, what on earth could it's purpose be other than getting the car home from the garage.

You don't have to justify the differences, but when someone says something is the same and you disagree it is fairly meaningless unless you elaborate on how they are different.

It's not me adding in purpose, purpose is entirely what we are discussing.
We are discussing if insurance to drive for the purpose of social domestic and pleasure covers these particular journies, or if they have a purpose that falls outside that definition and are therefore not covered.
To suggest I was the one who is bringing purpose into the debate is completely absurd.
.

Edited by e-honda on Tuesday 28th March 00:37

[BertBert]

I'm sorry you're way over complicating the matter and there's nothing to add by debating the afternoon journey.

It's just very simple the OP made a commute to work and so needed the correct insurance for it.

[E-bmw]

e-honda said:

The case law on it is here

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5ec215c12c94...

Seems like everyone got it wrong to at least some extent, the journey to and journey from were both the same essential character and primary purpose so one cannot have been commuting without the other also being

Correct, so as the morning journey is 100% travel to a regular place of work (AKA commuting) then so is the afternoon journey.

e-honda said:

Given there seems to be broad agreement that the return journey was a trip back from the garage and not commuting It is hard to argue the morning journey was commuting.

As above it is still commuting, or does he leave it at the garage & travel home by different means?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Morning journey, he's driving to work, which is commuting. If he crashes and is asked by his insurance co the purpose of his journey, the honest answer is "I was driving to work"

The afternoon journey is driving home from the garage. If he crashes, the honest answer to what he was doing is "I was returning home from the garage having just picked up my car that they had been working on". That's not commuting, it's SD&P.