One off commute on a classic policy

[boombang]

BertBert said:

Does the policy wording say that too?

One does, the other does not.

[drdel]

The OP has more than one car. He regularly uses one one to go to work. He does not use the other to go to work.

The second car needs to make a trip to the garage so there is no choice but to make a stopover at work in order to be able to complete both tasks. The prime and only reason the OP is driving the classic is to get it to the garage.

The classic is not being used to complete a route that it regularly travels: it is not involved with commuting.

[Second Best]

Just an anecdote.

I spoke to my insurance company a few years ago about a similar situation. I work at an airport, but we're also lucky enough that we can park in our company car park if we're going on holiday. So, I could drive in on Friday and leave the car until Tuesday, purely to save a few quid on airport parking fees and someone taking my car for a spin.

I asked them about this, as I have a car I don't commute in, but would perhaps bring it to work purely to leave in the car park (it was an ML63, definitely not a commuter car, but great at soaking up 3.5 suitcases for Mrs SB and I for our 3 day holiday to Germany).

Anyway, their response was, "should anything happen, if you can prove it's not a commute, that's fine. Evidence of holidays / flight tickets / or anything that shows you weren't going to work, will do."

I know these days common sense is uncommon, but I think that works. If I worked at a Sainsburys but went there when I wasn't working to do my shopping, well, that's not a commute - and is arguably the same circumstance you're in.

[MustangGT]

drdel said:

The OP has more than one car. He regularly uses one one to go to work. He does not use the other to go to work.

The second car needs to make a trip to the garage so there is no choice but to make a stopover at work in order to be able to complete both tasks. The prime and only reason the OP is driving the classic is to get it to the garage.

The classic is not being used to complete a route that it regularly travels: it is not involved with commuting.

It was used to go to work, therefore commuting. Commuting is travelling to a regular place of work, not travelling regularly.

It is not the only reason, he had to go to work.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

MustangGT said:

drdel said:

The OP has more than one car. He regularly uses one one to go to work. He does not use the other to go to work.

The second car needs to make a trip to the garage so there is no choice but to make a stopover at work in order to be able to complete both tasks. The prime and only reason the OP is driving the classic is to get it to the garage.

The classic is not being used to complete a route that it regularly travels: it is not involved with commuting.

It was used to go to work, therefore commuting. Commuting is travelling to a regular place of work, not travelling regularly.

It is not the only reason, he had to go to work.

Exactly. If he has an accident on his way to work, when he's asked what he was doing by insurers, the honest answer to that is "I was driving to work". People talk about insurance companies weaseling out of claims, but just read some of the mental gymnastics being performed on this thread by people trying to show the morning trip isn't commuting when in reality, we all know it is. HE IS DRIVING FROM HIS HOME TO WORK. Ffs, it's commuting.

Whether his insurers are prepared to give him a pass as it's a one off is an entirely different question. If they do, he needs it in writing, because he has a policy ( a written contract) that doesn't cover commuting, and he's commuting.

[ClaphamGT3]

Its £30 ffs

[E-bmw]

Second Best said:

Anyway, their response was, "should anything happen, if you can prove it's not a commute, that's fine. Evidence of holidays / flight tickets / or anything that shows you weren't going to work, will do."

Firstly, this reply is not directed at you personally, just responding to the points you raise.

OK, so in the 1,000,000 to one chance of a crash, lets go through the claim.

1. What happened? - Well at 08:45 on my way to a garage I crashed.

2. What time was your car booked in? - 15:00

3. So why were you going in at 08:45? - Er........

4. And why were you travelling in the other direction? - Er......

Obviously the chances of the above are (as stated above) 1,000,000 to one but basically, you are either lying or lying, aka committing insurance fraud.

The chances of anything happening or getting caught are minimal, but if they were to find out you will likely seriously struggle to ever get insured again, is it really worth the risk?

Beat around the bush all you like to try to claim it is not commuting, IT IS COMMUTING and if that is not covered by your insurance you WILL be goosed if caught.

Never worth the risk, hence why every vehicle I have ever owned (even when out of work) I have naturally added commuting just in case.

Second Best said:

I know these days common sense is uncommon, but I think that works. If I worked at a Sainsburys but went there when I wasn't working to do my shopping, well, that's not a commute - and is arguably the same circumstance you're in.

But it is NOT the same circumstances, does he work at the garage he is taking the car to? No, he does not.

[e600]

Take the day off, simple.

[shed driver]

e600 said:

Take the day off, simple.

I originally had the day off and the specialist was arranged around this. Due to sudden illness at work I'm having to cover for a colleague.

As it is, I've spoken to the insurance company who are adding commuting cover on for the £30 admin fee.

SD.

[BertBert]

Thanks for the update OP. Have you enjoyed the seemingly endless debate that your simple question provoked?

[NS66]

I have a couple of cars on classic insurance and I also use a local garage litterally 100 yards from my office - what could possibly go wrong!!! LOL
I have an appointment and can prove it if required !!

[drdel]

NS66 said:

I have a couple of cars on classic insurance and I also use a local garage litterally 100 yards from my office - what could possibly go wrong!!! LOL
I have an appointment and can prove it if required !!

Yup. A trip consists of an origin and a destination, it may involves way points. The 'classic' trip has a destination for maintenance. If asked mid-trip the destination is clear.

No insurer defines a route to be followed.

This dance on a pinhead has, by taking the context away from the main purpose that that specific car was in use has cost the OP £30.

[gt_12345]

DJP said:

If the OP is driving to his place of work, on a working day then he's commuting.

And what if the OP was driving to a place near his place of work, but not his place of work?

How on earth would the Insurer know the difference?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

gt_12345 said:

DJP said:

If the OP is driving to his place of work, on a working day then he's commuting.

And what if the OP was driving to a place near his place of work, but not his place of work?

How on earth would the Insurer know the difference?

I suspect, if he's involved in an horrific accident, he will tell them. It's very easy to lie to the insurers about what you were doing when you have a minor bump, but slightly less easy to lie to the police at the scene when dead bodies are being carted away, or in a subsequent police interview, at inquest into the death of someone in the accident, etc.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

drdel said:

NS66 said:

I have a couple of cars on classic insurance and I also use a local garage litterally 100 yards from my office - what could possibly go wrong!!! LOL
I have an appointment and can prove it if required !!

Yup. A trip consists of an origin and a destination, it may involves way points. The 'classic' trip has a destination for maintenance. If asked mid-trip the destination is clear.

No insurer defines a route to be followed.

This dance on a pinhead has, by taking the context away from the main purpose that that specific car was in use has cost the OP £30.

The sole purpose of the OP's morning journey was to go to work. Later on, he had another journey to make to the garage.

If I drive to visit my mum, I usually call in on my brother, for a good few hours, sometimes overnight. If I'm asked where I'm going once I leave home, I'm driving to see my brother. When I leave his house, I'm driving to see my mum. Anything other answer is just weaseling out of telling the truth, as fortunately, the OP has recognised.

[drdel]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The sole purpose of the OP's morning journey was to go to work. Later on, he had another journey to make to the garage.

If I drive to visit my mum, I usually call in on my brother, for a good few hours, sometimes overnight. If I'm asked where I'm going once I leave home, I'm driving to see my brother. When I leave his house, I'm driving to see my mum. Anything other answer is just weaseling out of telling the truth, as fortunately, the OP has recognised.

You choose how you describe a trip to fit your argument. But you're wrong. They key lies in why he was using that specific car.

But you will want the last word.....

[Cat]

drdel said:

You choose how you describe a trip to fit your argument. But you're wrong. They key lies in why he was using that specific car.

But you will want the last word.....

No, the key is what he is using the car for, which, when travelling from home to work to start work, is commuting. Why he is using that specific car, the fact that he has to take it to a garage later, is irrelevant and doesn't change what it is being used for.

Cat

[e-honda]

Cat said:

No, the key is what he is using the car for, which, when travelling from home to work to start work, is commuting. Why he is using that specific car, the fact that he has to take it to a garage later, is irrelevant and doesn't change what it is being used for.

Cat

It's not irrelevant.
It changes the primary purpose
The ordering is irrelevant they could have gone garage first then work and it would have been same essential character and primary purpose, which in this case is getting to the garage, so not commuting.

[Cat]

e-honda said:

It's not irrelevant.
It changes the primary purpose
The ordering is irrelevant they could have gone garage first then work and it would have been same essential character and primary purpose, which in this case is getting to the garage, so not commuting.

So if the OP was taking their everyday car, the one that when they drive to work any other day they are commuting in, to the garage in the same circumstances then that day the journey to work it is no longer a commute?

I'll try a 3rd time, what experience/background do you have in this area that you are basing your opinion on?

Cat

[BertBert]

e-honda said:

It's not irrelevant.
It changes the primary purpose
The ordering is irrelevant they could have gone garage first then work and it would have been same essential character and primary purpose, which in this case is getting to the garage, so not commuting.

You can't seriously still be going in this daft path? Hats off, you are stubborn