One off commute on a classic policy

[snuffy]

E-bmw said:

snuffy said:

E-bmw said:

snuffy said:

When you say "day off", do you mean you have booked a day off as part of your annual leave? In which case, surely the answer is very simple?

No, he said it should have been his day off, but that he is now having to go to work, try reading the post before replying.

That is why I asked my question.

Is the day off a part of working on say a rota, whereby your contract my say your employer can change said rota at short notice, or is said day off a booked day off as part of your contractual annual leave.

Try not to make assumptions before replying.

If he is going to work he is not on a day off.

If he is going to work he is commuting.

Try thinking beyond the point of insurance.

[boombang]

snuffy said:

Try thinking beyond the point of insurance.

You've made that cryptic statement twice now whilst others have been very clear and logical in their postings. Are you willing to elaborate?

[OutInTheShed]

Does the policy actually say 'commute'?

'Commute' would imply to me that the trip was done regularly and often.

Personally, I just get business use on all my vehicles.

[e-honda]

Cat said:

They are not simply taking the car to a place of repair. They are driving from home to work, doing some work until the repair place opens, then driving from work to the repair place.

The journey from home to work is commuting, the fact that they are taking their car from work to a garage later on doesn't change this (in the same way that popping to the shops in the car in your lunch hour doesn't mean that your journeys to/from work that day aren't commutes). The journey from work to the garage or from the garage home at the end of day would not be commuting.

If work told them they didn't have to work that day the nature of trip would change because it wouldn't be from home to work and so not a cummute.

Cat

I disagree.
The only reason he would be driving that car on that day is because it it booked into the garage, so the principal reason for the journey is to take the car to the garage.

You cannot drive to work every day stopping off at the shops part way and claim it is not travel to work it's shopping, so how can they claim stopping off at work on the way to the garage is not travelling to the garage.

To be honest I think it's fairly unnecessary to worry about it, if you are concerned about ensuring you have the basic legal minimum cover in place just remember if you do have an accident not to over share and you won't end up having this debate with anyone.
If you are after the best protection for your car then pay the extra or get a more comprehensive policy.

[MustangGT]

Cat said:

They are not simply taking the car to a place of repair. They are driving from home to work, doing some work until the repair place opens, then driving from work to the repair place.

The journey from home to work is commuting, the fact that they are taking their car from work to a garage later on doesn't change this (in the same way that popping to the shops in the car in your lunch hour doesn't mean that your journeys to/from work that day aren't commutes). The journey from work to the garage or from the garage home at the end of day would not be commuting.

If work told them they didn't have to work that day the nature of trip would change because it wouldn't be from home to work and so not a cummute.

Cat

He is not driving to work though, he is driving to the garage, then going on to work. Similarly he is not driving home from work, he is driving home from the garage. He is not commuting.

I ask again, he does not go to work that day, definitely not commuting. He decides to take a taxi from the garage to the office to wait for the car to be done. How is this different?

Edited to add: If he gets stopped in either direction he can show it was taking the car to the garage, booking confirmed and/or invoice. The police are not going to ask whether he went to work in between times are they?

[snuffy]

boombang said:

snuffy said:

Try thinking beyond the point of insurance.

You've made that cryptic statement twice now whilst others have been very clear and logical in their postings. Are you willing to elaborate?

Someone else did make the same point as I'm alluding to, however:

If the OP has a requested and approved day off as part of his annual leave then there's no issue with insurance. He's on holiday, he's not going into work, and that is an end to the matter.

But, if he's on a rota type of the thing, where even on your days off, his employer can call him into work at short notice, then that's a different matter, and the subject of insurance is then a valid one.

On the subject of the insurance cover, my view is this:

If he were to drive to the garage, drop the car there, then travel to work by another means, the do the same in reverse, then that's not commuting.

But since he's said he's driving to work first (because of the time of day) and then going to the garage afterwards, then I'd say that is commuting.

[E-bmw]

snuffy said:

E-bmw said:

snuffy said:

E-bmw said:

snuffy said:

When you say "day off", do you mean you have booked a day off as part of your annual leave? In which case, surely the answer is very simple?

No, he said it should have been his day off, but that he is now having to go to work, try reading the post before replying.

That is why I asked my question.

Is the day off a part of working on say a rota, whereby your contract my say your employer can change said rota at short notice, or is said day off a booked day off as part of your contractual annual leave.

Try not to make assumptions before replying.

If he is going to work he is not on a day off.

If he is going to work he is commuting.

Try thinking beyond the point of insurance.

Why would I do that when that is the OPs question?

[InitialDave]

snuffy said:

Someone else did make the same point as I'm alluding to, however:

If the OP has a requested and approved day off as part of his annual leave then there's no issue with insurance. He's on holiday, he's not going into work, and that is an end to the matter.

But, if he's on a rota type of the thing, where even on your days off, his employer can call him into work at short notice, then that's a different matter, and the subject of insurance is then a valid one.

I don't think this is correct.

If I have a day off, but there's some kind of emergency at work and they ask me to come in, then I would say the journey to and from work is still my commute.

I don't see why whether they can contractually require it or I'm agreeing to do it to be helpful would change that.

[Cat]

e-honda said:

I disagree.
The only reason he would be driving that car on that day is because it it booked into the garage, so the principal reason for the journey is to take the car to the garage.

You cannot drive to work every day stopping off at the shops part way and claim it is not travel to work it's shopping, so how can they claim stopping off at work on the way to the garage is not travelling to the garage.

boombang provided the wording from their policy

boombang said:

"including travel between the driver's home and permanent place of work."

Explain how the OP driving from home to work does not satisfy that definition? The fact that they are subsequently taking the car to the garage, after doing some work, is irrelevant.

Cat

[Cat]

MustangGT said:

He is not driving to work though, he is driving to the garage, then going on to work. Similarly he is not driving home from work, he is driving home from the garage. He is not commuting.

I think you need to re-read the OP

shed driver said:

I've got a classic policy which doesn't allow use for commuting. I have booked it to have some work done on what was originally my day off however staff shortages mean I'm going to have to go to work. I can nip out of work and drop the car off with the specialist and then pick it up after work.

They are driving to work i.e. commuting, then leaving work to drop the car off.

Cat

[scottos]

I have commuting to single place of work on my classic policy, it's nice to use it on the nice days when the kids are off school and the roads are quiet.

I'd recommend just paying the £30 and maybe use it the odd time afterwards too, sometimes a hard day at work is instantly relieved by walking out to your old classic.

[e-honda]

Cat said:

Explain how the OP driving from home to work does not satisfy that definition? The fact that they are subsequently taking the car to the garage, after doing some work, is irrelevant.

Cat

Explain how that is not covered by section 148 of the road traffic act

(1)Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—
(a)the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or
(b)the operation of the security,(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.
(2)Those matters are—
(a)the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,
(b)the condition of the vehicle,
(c)the number of persons that the vehicle carries,
(d)the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,
(e)the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,
(f)the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,
(g)the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or
(h)the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the [1971 c. 10.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.
(3)Nothing in subsection (1) above requires an insurer or the giver of a security to pay any sum in respect of the liability of any person otherwise than in or towards the discharge of that liability.

[Cat]

e-honda said:

Explain how that is not covered by section 148 of the road traffic act

(1)Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—
(a)the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or
(b)the operation of the security,(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.
(2)Those matters are—
(a)the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,
(b)the condition of the vehicle,
(c)the number of persons that the vehicle carries,
(d)the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,
(e)the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,
(f)the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,
(g)the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or
(h)the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the [1971 c. 10.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.
(3)Nothing in subsection (1) above requires an insurer or the giver of a security to pay any sum in respect of the liability of any person otherwise than in or towards the discharge of that liability.

The OPs question has nothing to do with times at which the vehicle is being used or the areas where is it being used - it is the purpose for which it is being used that is the issue.

if you commute in your vehicle and don't have insurance which covers commuting then you commit an offence. s148 doesn't alter that it is simply a list of factors which insurers cannot use to try and avoid their liabilities under s145.

Cat

[e-honda]

Cat said:

The OPs question has nothing to do with times at which the vehicle is being used or the areas where is it being used - it is the purpose for which it is being used that is the issue.

if you commute in your vehicle and don't have insurance which covers commuting then you commit an offence. s148 doesn't alter that it is simply a list of factors which insurers cannot use to try and avoid their liabilities under s145.

Cat

Exactly
The insurer of a person who was insured to drive his car to the garage, who was driving his car that day because he was taking it to the garage cannot rely on a clause that says he was not allowed to drive somewhere else on his way to the garage, that would be a matter relating to the time or area that the vehicle was being used.

So it then comes back down to the use, was it a trip to the garage which is included use under SD&P with an allowable stop off or was it a trip to work which is potentially not a covered use and a subsequent trip to the garage.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

MustangGT said:

For once, I actually disagree with you. He is taking the car to the place of repair. What he does between dropping it off and picking it up is totally irrelevant. The trip would take place to the place of repair regardless. If work called him up the day before and says 'we don't need you tomorrow' how would the trip to the place of repair change in nature?

What would be commuting would be to drive the car to work and have the repair place pick it up and return it.

As I read it, he's driving to work. Once at work, after a while, he'll drive car from work to garage and bus/walk back to work. He'll finish work, bus/walk to garage, pick car up, and drive home.

The morning journey, from home to work, is commuting, and he won't be covered for that. All the other trips are fine.

[Grumps.]

All this over £30?

[Dingu]

Riley Blue said:

Dingu said:

Riley Blue said:

JimSuperSix said:

surely you are driving from home to the specialist and then walking to work?

You are not driving from home to work and vice-versa so that's how I interpret it.

Commuting could be needed if doing part of the journey to work by car, E.g., to a train station to then get a train, so I wouldn’t be too sure about that interpretation.

I'm sure many people who may not drive to work on a regular basis have dropped off their car for a service once in while and picked it up on the way home. That's not commuting in it.

It could well be. With respect all you are doing is spreading a way you wish to interpret the situation which isn’t aligned to the reality of it.

For the sake of £30 the potential fine points or uninsured loss isn’t worth it.

[Cat]

e-honda said:

Exactly
The insurer of a person who was insured to drive his car to the garage, who was driving his car that day because he was taking it to the garage cannot rely on a clause that says he was not allowed to drive somewhere else on his way to the garage, that would be a matter relating to the time or area that the vehicle was being used.

So it then comes back down to the use, was it a trip to the garage which is included use under SD&P with an allowable stop off or was it a trip to work which is potentially not a covered use and a subsequent trip to the garage.

When the OP is driving from home to work they are not drving to the garage.

When the OP is driving to work they are commuting - "travelling between the driver's home and permanent place of work" - their insurance doesn't cover them for commuting. The fact that they are subsequently going to drive from work to a garage doesn't change that fact. The fact they don't drive that car to work every day doesn't alter that fact.

Cat

[e-honda]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

As I read it, he's driving to work. Once at work, after a while, he'll drive car from work to garage and bus/walk back to work. He'll finish work, bus/walk to garage, pick car up, and drive home.

The morning journey, from home to work, is commuting, and he won't be covered for that. All the other trips are fine.

I guess he just needs to buy a twix between home and work then

[ingenieur]

I raised a similar debate a couple of days ago over the issue of business insurance. It really does sicken me that insurance companies have it within their gift to seize upon an exception as an excuse not to provide the full insurance in such a case.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...