One off commute on a classic policy
Discussion
Cat said:
If they drive from home to work in their everyday car - that would be a commute.
If they drive from home to work in the classic car - that would be a commute
If they drive from home to work in the classic car, do some work and then later drive the car to the garage - the original drive to work is suddenly not a commute? Sorry but that simply makes no sense.
You can obfuscate as much as you like with irrelevant whataboutery and talk of trips to McDonalds etc. but none of that alters the fact that in the situation described in the OP, where they are driving their car from home to a permanent place of work to start work for a period before then later taking the car to the garage, then the journey from work to home is communting and requires insurance that covers that.
Cat
You are failing to appreciate the concept of there being a principle activity and how that is used to determine the use and how it can cover multiple parts of a journey.If they drive from home to work in the classic car - that would be a commute
If they drive from home to work in the classic car, do some work and then later drive the car to the garage - the original drive to work is suddenly not a commute? Sorry but that simply makes no sense.
You can obfuscate as much as you like with irrelevant whataboutery and talk of trips to McDonalds etc. but none of that alters the fact that in the situation described in the OP, where they are driving their car from home to a permanent place of work to start work for a period before then later taking the car to the garage, then the journey from work to home is communting and requires insurance that covers that.
Cat
That is why someone can go somewhere that isn't work, then work and it still be commuting, that is therefore also why you can have a situation where someone can go to somewhere that is work, then somewhere that isn't work and it not be commuting.
You can disagree with me that the principle activity is taking his car to the garage, and in your opinion its travel to work and the trip to the garage is unrelated to the activity of travelling to work or is ancillary to the primary activity of travelling to work, but that isn't what you are saying, you are saying what I am saying doesn't make sense / is impossible. I've made my point pretty clearly if you still don't understand it you don't understand the law.
Edited by e-honda on Saturday 25th March 07:37
k principles, fe-honda said:
You are failing to appreciate the concept of there being a principle activity and how that is used to determine the use and how it can cover multiple parts of a journey.
That is why someone can go somewhere that isn't work, then work and it still be commuting, that is therefore also why you can have a situation where someone can go to somewhere that is work, then somewhere that isn't work and it not be commuting.
You can disagree with me that the principle activity is taking his car to the garage, and in your opinion its travel to work and the trip to the garage is unrelated to the activity of travelling to work or is ancillary to the primary activity of travelling to work, but that isn't what you are saying, you are saying what I am saying doesn't make sense / is impossible. I've made my point pretty clearly if you still don't understand it you don't understand the law.
I understand the point you are trying to make perfectly well l just think it is incorrect.That is why someone can go somewhere that isn't work, then work and it still be commuting, that is therefore also why you can have a situation where someone can go to somewhere that is work, then somewhere that isn't work and it not be commuting.
You can disagree with me that the principle activity is taking his car to the garage, and in your opinion its travel to work and the trip to the garage is unrelated to the activity of travelling to work or is ancillary to the primary activity of travelling to work, but that isn't what you are saying, you are saying what I am saying doesn't make sense / is impossible. I've made my point pretty clearly if you still don't understand it you don't understand the law.
Consider if the OP was taking their everyday car to the garage in the same circumstances. According to your logic their journey to work that day would suddenly not be commuting even though every other day it would be commuting.
In the case of the OP the stop at work is not a brief one incidental to their main journey to the garage. They are going into their workplace because they have to work that day and they are doing their job for a period of time before leaving again to go to the garage. If they didn't have to take the car to the garage that day they would still be travelling from home to work, i.e. commuting. The only difference would be that the journey would be in a different vehicle.
What experience/background do you have in insurance/motoring law that you are basing your opinion on?
Cat
Cat said:
I understand the point you are trying to make perfectly well l just think it is incorrect.
Consider if the OP was taking their everyday car to the garage in the same circumstances. According to your logic their journey to work that day would suddenly not be commuting even though every other day it would be commuting.
In the case of the OP the stop at work is not a brief one incidental to their main journey to the garage. They are going into their workplace because they have to work that day and they are doing their job for a period of time before leaving again to go to the garage. If they didn't have to take the car to the garage that day they would still be travelling from home to work, i.e. commuting. The only difference would be that the journey would be in a different vehicle.
What experience/background do you have in insurance/motoring law that you are basing your opinion on?
Cat
If you understand the point I am making perfectly, why claim it makes no sense or it confuses you.Consider if the OP was taking their everyday car to the garage in the same circumstances. According to your logic their journey to work that day would suddenly not be commuting even though every other day it would be commuting.
In the case of the OP the stop at work is not a brief one incidental to their main journey to the garage. They are going into their workplace because they have to work that day and they are doing their job for a period of time before leaving again to go to the garage. If they didn't have to take the car to the garage that day they would still be travelling from home to work, i.e. commuting. The only difference would be that the journey would be in a different vehicle.
What experience/background do you have in insurance/motoring law that you are basing your opinion on?
Cat
If his garage appointment was cancelled he would be making his normal journey to work by what ever means that normally would be, he certainly wouldn't be driving that car, possibly not driving any car.
If his work shift was cancelled he would still be driving that car to that garage, because that was his original intention.
How can the primary activity here not be getting the car to the garage.
You have decided his stop at work isn't a brief one that is incidental to the main journey, but I don't think that it has even been discussed how brief his time at work would be.
You have been trying to insist it doesn't matter, so why bring it up?
It sounds like you are trying to argue that the stop at work isn't brief enough to be an ancillary to the primary activity of taking the car to the garage, now we are getting into the nuance that you have previously denied exists and have made assumptions to support your conclusions.
e-honda said:
Dingu said:
You probably need to give up.
Why because twig is the authority and he can just say it's not covered without exploring the nuance of a complicated legal grey area.If you or the OP decides I'm an idiot and ignores me, I won't be in the least offended.
e-honda said:
If you understand the point I am making perfectly, why claim it makes no sense or it confuses you.
It makes no sense and confuses me based on my knowledge and experience of insurance and road traffic law. I'll ask again what background do you have in this area that you are basing your opinion on?e-honda said:
You have decided his stop at work isn't a brief one that is incidental to the main journey, but I don't think that it has even been discussed how brief his time at work would be.
I've not "decided that their stop at work isn't a brief one". I formed my view from what the OP posted...shed driver said:
I have to be at work well before the garage opens
e-honda said:
It sounds like you are trying to argue that the stop at work isn't brief enough to be an ancillary to the primary activity of taking the car to the garage, now we are getting into the nuance that you have previously denied exists and have made assumptions to support your conclusions.
Nice strawman - I've never denied that there can be nuance. I have stated that in the circumstances described by the OP the journey from home to work is a commute.Cat
e-honda said:
If you understand the point I am making perfectly, why claim it makes no sense or it confuses you.
If his garage appointment was cancelled he would be making his normal journey to work by what ever means that normally would be, he certainly wouldn't be driving that car, possibly not driving any car.
If his work shift was cancelled he would still be driving that car to that garage, because that was his original intention.
How can the primary activity here not be getting the car to the garage.
You have decided his stop at work isn't a brief one that is incidental to the main journey, but I don't think that it has even been discussed how brief his time at work would be.
You have been trying to insist it doesn't matter, so why bring it up?
It sounds like you are trying to argue that the stop at work isn't brief enough to be an ancillary to the primary activity of taking the car to the garage, now we are getting into the nuance that you have previously denied exists and have made assumptions to support your conclusions.
This primary activity thing is something of your own making. The OP is driving to work for the purpose of working. Then he's making a trip to the garage. You can argue that the trip from work to the garage is S, D or P. By the wording of the insurance conditions however, the definition as it were, his journey to work is a commute. That needs a specific insurance cover that the car in question doesn't have.If his garage appointment was cancelled he would be making his normal journey to work by what ever means that normally would be, he certainly wouldn't be driving that car, possibly not driving any car.
If his work shift was cancelled he would still be driving that car to that garage, because that was his original intention.
How can the primary activity here not be getting the car to the garage.
You have decided his stop at work isn't a brief one that is incidental to the main journey, but I don't think that it has even been discussed how brief his time at work would be.
You have been trying to insist it doesn't matter, so why bring it up?
It sounds like you are trying to argue that the stop at work isn't brief enough to be an ancillary to the primary activity of taking the car to the garage, now we are getting into the nuance that you have previously denied exists and have made assumptions to support your conclusions.
If the £30 covers commuting for the rest of the policy it has to be a no brainer. Then you can also give the car a run every now and then to work.
If it is just for the day and you want to save some cash, then try the companies offering 24 hour insurance.I have used 'day insure'a few times, think it was £15 or so for a day's cover including commuting.
If it is just for the day and you want to save some cash, then try the companies offering 24 hour insurance.I have used 'day insure'a few times, think it was £15 or so for a day's cover including commuting.
boombang said:
As said a few times based on my insurance simply driving to the workplace is commuting.
Does the word 'commuting' actually occur in the policy docs?Do most people's every day policies include some wibble about 'travelling to a single place of employment'?
What happens if you drive to a job interview?
Should you have 'business' for that?
Dingu said:
It’s embarrassing that users of a motoring forum are being such old women about insurance and the fact that drivers should be appropriately covered.
World has changed has it not?30years ago, you just got on with life, commuting was part of SDP, if you did the odd 'business' trip for your job, nobody questioned it.
I've been either freelance or self employed since then, I just got business use, job done.
These days, a teacher wants to use her car to pick up some work-related junk and you wonder if they need 'goods' cover.
I don't think it's 'just' me getting older and more risk averse?
I get the feeling that every weekday, a million journeys are done which are arguably not covered?
So much overthinking going on. It’s a wonder some of you are even able to get out of bed without talking yourselves out if it.
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.
The vehicle in question is not at all being used in that manner. It’s being taken for maintenance, and due to unavoidable personal logistics 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.
Ultimately it’s up to the OP and the specific wording of his insurance policy. But if it were me I wouldn’t hesitate as it’s clearly justifiable as a one-off non-commute usage in support of the vehicle’s upkeep. For the insurance co to interpret it otherwise would be unreasonable and not in the spirit of what a “no commuting” clause means.
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.
The vehicle in question is not at all being used in that manner. It’s being taken for maintenance, and due to unavoidable personal logistics 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.
Ultimately it’s up to the OP and the specific wording of his insurance policy. But if it were me I wouldn’t hesitate as it’s clearly justifiable as a one-off non-commute usage in support of the vehicle’s upkeep. For the insurance co to interpret it otherwise would be unreasonable and not in the spirit of what a “no commuting” clause means.
Edited by dvs_dave on Saturday 25th March 20:49
dvs_dave said:
So much overthinking going on. It’s a wonder some of you are even able to get out of bed without talking yourselves out if it.
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.
The vehicle in question is not at all being used in that manner. It’s being taken for maintenance, and due to unavoidable personal logistics 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.
Ultimately it’s up to the OP and the specific wording of his insurance policy. But if it were me I wouldn’t hesitate as it’s clearly justifiable as a one-off non-commute usage in support of the vehicle’s upkeep. For the insurance co to interpret it otherwise would be unreasonable and not in the spirit of what a “no commuting” clause means.
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.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.
The vehicle in question is not at all being used in that manner. It’s being taken for maintenance, and due to unavoidable personal logistics 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.
Ultimately it’s up to the OP and the specific wording of his insurance policy. But if it were me I wouldn’t hesitate as it’s clearly justifiable as a one-off non-commute usage in support of the vehicle’s upkeep. For the insurance co to interpret it otherwise would be unreasonable and not in the spirit of what a “no commuting” clause means.
Edited by dvs_dave on Saturday 25th March 20:49
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.
Would this count as commuting? My insurance company wants at least £30 for a change.
SD.
Would this count as commuting? My insurance company wants at least £30 for a change.
SD.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff