Company car & driving without insurance
Discussion
Hi,
My wife has a new company car and has just been in a crash on the m25.
Her company told her she was insured under the "fleet policy" (twice, once by email, once by phone) she has a copy of policy certificate.
Turns out this is not correct and her car + all the other new (18/19 plate) cars have not been added to the policy by the broker.
Would she still get points + a fine for driving without insurance, or would this be a case that is worth going to court (unlimited fine + points).
My gut feeling is she is the one at fault as she is driving (in the eyes of the law) but has anyone else come across something similar?
Cheers
My wife has a new company car and has just been in a crash on the m25.
Her company told her she was insured under the "fleet policy" (twice, once by email, once by phone) she has a copy of policy certificate.
Turns out this is not correct and her car + all the other new (18/19 plate) cars have not been added to the policy by the broker.
Would she still get points + a fine for driving without insurance, or would this be a case that is worth going to court (unlimited fine + points).
My gut feeling is she is the one at fault as she is driving (in the eyes of the law) but has anyone else come across something similar?
Cheers
Seems to be a few similar links on Google:
https://www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com/offences/driv...
There is also a statutory defence for persons using vehicles in the course of their employment. There are three conditions that require to be established for a successful defence under Section 143(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
(a) That the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of loan or hiring
(b) That he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment;
(c) That he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security.
It is for an accused person to satisfy the Court of all three conditions on the balance of probabilities.
https://www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com/offences/driv...
There is also a statutory defence for persons using vehicles in the course of their employment. There are three conditions that require to be established for a successful defence under Section 143(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
(a) That the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of loan or hiring
(b) That he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment;
(c) That he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security.
It is for an accused person to satisfy the Court of all three conditions on the balance of probabilities.
There is a statutory exemption which would appear to apply to your wife:
RTA 1988 said:
S.143 - Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.
<..snip..>
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
<..snip..>
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
Pigdoguk said:
Hi,
My wife has a new company car and has just been in a crash on the m25.
Her company told her she was insured under the "fleet policy" (twice, once by email, once by phone) she has a copy of policy certificate.
Turns out this is not correct and her car + all the other new (18/19 plate) cars have not been added to the policy by the broker.
Would she still get points + a fine for driving without insurance, or would this be a case that is worth going to court (unlimited fine + points).
My gut feeling is she is the one at fault as she is driving (in the eyes of the law) but has anyone else come across something similar?
Cheers
It sounds like she'll be fine. Do you know if the company informed the broker of the new cars? Could be a broker cock up or the company. My wife has a new company car and has just been in a crash on the m25.
Her company told her she was insured under the "fleet policy" (twice, once by email, once by phone) she has a copy of policy certificate.
Turns out this is not correct and her car + all the other new (18/19 plate) cars have not been added to the policy by the broker.
Would she still get points + a fine for driving without insurance, or would this be a case that is worth going to court (unlimited fine + points).
My gut feeling is she is the one at fault as she is driving (in the eyes of the law) but has anyone else come across something similar?
Cheers
She has a defense as it was a company vehicle and was told (I'm assuming by HR?) that she was covered.
As has been said so long as it was company business, from what has been said then she has a defence against no insurance.
This is not the same as being insured though so any third party liability is for her to sort out. Obviously there may be some vicarious liability or even some way to recover anything from the employer for negligence.
This is not the same as being insured though so any third party liability is for her to sort out. Obviously there may be some vicarious liability or even some way to recover anything from the employer for negligence.
Graveworm said:
As has been said so long as it was company business, from what has been said then she has a defence against no insurance.
This is not the same as being insured though so any third party liability is for her to sort out. Obviously there may be some vicarious liability or even some way to recover anything from the employer for negligence.
It sounds like the broker was at fault, and they will have Professional Indemnity insurance to cover financial losses by their customers as a result of their cock ups, so any claim from the tp against your wife should be picked up by the broker's P.I. insurers. This is not the same as being insured though so any third party liability is for her to sort out. Obviously there may be some vicarious liability or even some way to recover anything from the employer for negligence.
Also as I understand it the car does not have to be physically added to the policy, certainly any company I have worked for.
As long as the car meets the criteria doesn't have to be added but should still be covered for 3rd party.
Get confirmation as I have had to notify insurers about changes in hire car etc, but I was always covered.
The car is leased, hired, owned by the company should be fine.
As long as the car meets the criteria doesn't have to be added but should still be covered for 3rd party.
Get confirmation as I have had to notify insurers about changes in hire car etc, but I was always covered.
The car is leased, hired, owned by the company should be fine.
surveyor_101 said:
Also as I understand it the car does not have to be physically added to the policy, certainly any company I have worked for.
As long as the car meets the criteria doesn't have to be added but should still be covered for 3rd party.
Get confirmation as I have had to notify insurers about changes in hire car etc, but I was always covered.
The car is leased, hired, owned by the company should be fine.
How does it get added to the MID database then?As long as the car meets the criteria doesn't have to be added but should still be covered for 3rd party.
Get confirmation as I have had to notify insurers about changes in hire car etc, but I was always covered.
The car is leased, hired, owned by the company should be fine.
KungFuPanda said:
surveyor_101 said:
Also as I understand it the car does not have to be physically added to the policy, certainly any company I have worked for.
As long as the car meets the criteria doesn't have to be added but should still be covered for 3rd party.
Get confirmation as I have had to notify insurers about changes in hire car etc, but I was always covered.
The car is leased, hired, owned by the company should be fine.
How does it get added to the MID database then?As long as the car meets the criteria doesn't have to be added but should still be covered for 3rd party.
Get confirmation as I have had to notify insurers about changes in hire car etc, but I was always covered.
The car is leased, hired, owned by the company should be fine.
The age can go down but the price goes up.
KungFuPanda said:
surveyor_101 said:
Also as I understand it the car does not have to be physically added to the policy, certainly any company I have worked for.
As long as the car meets the criteria doesn't have to be added but should still be covered for 3rd party.
Get confirmation as I have had to notify insurers about changes in hire car etc, but I was always covered.
The car is leased, hired, owned by the company should be fine.
How does it get added to the MID database then?As long as the car meets the criteria doesn't have to be added but should still be covered for 3rd party.
Get confirmation as I have had to notify insurers about changes in hire car etc, but I was always covered.
The car is leased, hired, owned by the company should be fine.
Richard-G said:
KungFuPanda said:
surveyor_101 said:
Also as I understand it the car does not have to be physically added to the policy, certainly any company I have worked for.
As long as the car meets the criteria doesn't have to be added but should still be covered for 3rd party.
Get confirmation as I have had to notify insurers about changes in hire car etc, but I was always covered.
The car is leased, hired, owned by the company should be fine.
How does it get added to the MID database then?As long as the car meets the criteria doesn't have to be added but should still be covered for 3rd party.
Get confirmation as I have had to notify insurers about changes in hire car etc, but I was always covered.
The car is leased, hired, owned by the company should be fine.
The age can go down but the price goes up.
If you have under 25 vehicles, you may well have to advise them as and when to get vehicles covered.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Graveworm said:
As has been said so long as it was company business, from what has been said then she has a defence against no insurance.
This is not the same as being insured though so any third party liability is for her to sort out. Obviously there may be some vicarious liability or even some way to recover anything from the employer for negligence.
It sounds like the broker was at fault, and they will have Professional Indemnity insurance to cover financial losses by their customers as a result of their cock ups, so any claim from the tp against your wife should be picked up by the broker's P.I. insurers. This is not the same as being insured though so any third party liability is for her to sort out. Obviously there may be some vicarious liability or even some way to recover anything from the employer for negligence.
Might be wrong, memory and all that...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It'll depend on the policy, usually the bigger the fleet, the more open the cover. If you have 5000 vehicles, you do not advise insurers of every change, you update the MID yourself thru a portal, and do an 6 monthly or annual declaration to insurers re what has been added and deleted. Meanwhile, they cover you for everything in your possession.
If you have under 25 vehicles, you may well have to advise them as and when to get vehicles covered.
Defo on large fleets its not an issue.If you have under 25 vehicles, you may well have to advise them as and when to get vehicles covered.
I worked for a smaller local business with circa 30-50 (some owned/leased/hire vehicles and they were covered automatically.
I was stopped by police and old the car (they owned for 6months plus) and was told its not insured. Correct wording would be to say its not 'showing' as insured.
Not sure if he was lying but I was certainly covered (I had seen the reg of this car on the documents) as I had to do a driver risk reduction and assessment recently for the new fleet policy and if we got higher risk we had to do driver improvement. I scored low risk and didn't!
IanA2 said:
From deep in the mists of time I seem recall that Ins Broker's E&O cover was one of the highest rated PI's.
Indeed, because with motor insurance, it's unlimited tp injury liability. A simple mistake by a broker, getting instructions to add a car, and then the next call coming in straight away before you've done it, and then overlooking it completely, and the P.I. insurers could be looking at a multi million pound payout!Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff