"Chauffeur in your own car" legalities
Discussion
IANAL. As a man on the Clapham Omnibus, I would say that falls squarely into Hire and Reward. However, I know of a few people who provide this service without the middleman and take you to the airport in your own car. The one my mum used to use was an ex-copper, so always assumed it was kosher.
1I used to do this and miss it greatly, had a few famous bodies to drive around.
As far as i am aware, C must have insurance for any driver before they are taken on the books, If they haven't then the company takes out 'day insurence' to cover me
As regards the hire ad reward portion looking at it form my POV, there is none as the car is carrying the insurer and he is not using it for hire or reward to himself. He is paying someone to drive them home.
There was another compant advertising to offer the following
You are drunk..you know you are drunk so you ring them up and a chap arrives on a fold down bike. puts it in the boot, drives you home, you pay him, he gets bike out of boot and onto the next job. Where is there H=R portion He/I are driving gthe vehicle on his insurance with his permission whethere or not money changes hands between you and him or hiom ,the company, and then you is of no concern. All plod need to know is
Is it insured
Are you covered by the insurance either his or your to drive any car not owned by you
Have you permission
If all three are yes what is the problem?. Another scenario you are at the pub you ask your mate to drive you home. you give him a fiver for his trouble
If the three questions above are all yes again what is the problem
In all my years i only had one instance where to firm took out insurance and they said IF you are stopped ring me at home and i will give them all the details should they not accept the cover note you will be carrying
HTH
As far as i am aware, C must have insurance for any driver before they are taken on the books, If they haven't then the company takes out 'day insurence' to cover me
As regards the hire ad reward portion looking at it form my POV, there is none as the car is carrying the insurer and he is not using it for hire or reward to himself. He is paying someone to drive them home.
There was another compant advertising to offer the following
You are drunk..you know you are drunk so you ring them up and a chap arrives on a fold down bike. puts it in the boot, drives you home, you pay him, he gets bike out of boot and onto the next job. Where is there H=R portion He/I are driving gthe vehicle on his insurance with his permission whethere or not money changes hands between you and him or hiom ,the company, and then you is of no concern. All plod need to know is
Is it insured
Are you covered by the insurance either his or your to drive any car not owned by you
Have you permission
If all three are yes what is the problem?. Another scenario you are at the pub you ask your mate to drive you home. you give him a fiver for his trouble
If the three questions above are all yes again what is the problem
In all my years i only had one instance where to firm took out insurance and they said IF you are stopped ring me at home and i will give them all the details should they not accept the cover note you will be carrying
HTH
Doesn't seem to be an issue for nannies / child minders.
I know people who've done this and have just been put on the family insurance and given access to the cars.
When they are driving the kids somewhere they're being paid to look after them, which because they're going out somewhere involves driving. They're not being paid to drive them even when they are driving them. If the kids were unwell or didn't want to go out, they'd still be being paid to watch them at home. If the car was unavailable and they went in a taxi, they'd still be going and still be being paid.
I guess your situation is very slightly different in that if adults took a taxi the driver might not be going, but they'd still be being paid, unless you are talking about them being hired by the hour for specific jobs which would mean they wouldn't be getting hired.
I guess the way to avoid any issues is to describe themselves as a valet rather than a chauffeur, if a plod wants to get into the specifics and declare your insurance invalid because your man servant doesn't warm your toilet seat for you, it wouldn't have matter what the paperwork said they'd already decided what they were going to do.
I know people who've done this and have just been put on the family insurance and given access to the cars.
When they are driving the kids somewhere they're being paid to look after them, which because they're going out somewhere involves driving. They're not being paid to drive them even when they are driving them. If the kids were unwell or didn't want to go out, they'd still be being paid to watch them at home. If the car was unavailable and they went in a taxi, they'd still be going and still be being paid.
I guess your situation is very slightly different in that if adults took a taxi the driver might not be going, but they'd still be being paid, unless you are talking about them being hired by the hour for specific jobs which would mean they wouldn't be getting hired.
I guess the way to avoid any issues is to describe themselves as a valet rather than a chauffeur, if a plod wants to get into the specifics and declare your insurance invalid because your man servant doesn't warm your toilet seat for you, it wouldn't have matter what the paperwork said they'd already decided what they were going to do.
Having done it for several years, up until a few years ago, it is most definitely "Hire or Reward". The law is fairly clear, any payment from anyone, third party company or not, in return for driving other people is Hire or Reward.
Do loads of people do it without being correctly insured? Yes. Some use general trade policies, and some ask to be put onto the car owner's policy as a named driver.
The simplest way of deciding if it is "Hire or Reward" is to ask "Would you be doing it if you weren't being paid?" In a similar vein you will see that some car dealers' service shuttles carry Private Hire plates. Because they wouldn't be running you to the station/office whatever if you weren't paying them to service your car, and insurance for hire and reward is very difficult to obtain, unless it is for a local authority licensed vehicle. And for the smart Alecs who say "the lease company pays", or "it was warranty work" that is not the letter of the law. Hire or Reward is if any payment is made, cash or kind, by anyone, in return for the service.
Another side issue was that when I was doing it the occupation of "driver", as opposed to taxi driver, was not an option to use when requesting a DBS check.
The whole taxi vs private hire (minicab) legislation is a complete mess, and the minor side show of "chauffeur in your own car" is no different. An intricate web of companies and subcontractors doesn't make it legal to do without Hire and Reward insurance, but it happens all the time.
Do loads of people do it without being correctly insured? Yes. Some use general trade policies, and some ask to be put onto the car owner's policy as a named driver.
The simplest way of deciding if it is "Hire or Reward" is to ask "Would you be doing it if you weren't being paid?" In a similar vein you will see that some car dealers' service shuttles carry Private Hire plates. Because they wouldn't be running you to the station/office whatever if you weren't paying them to service your car, and insurance for hire and reward is very difficult to obtain, unless it is for a local authority licensed vehicle. And for the smart Alecs who say "the lease company pays", or "it was warranty work" that is not the letter of the law. Hire or Reward is if any payment is made, cash or kind, by anyone, in return for the service.
Another side issue was that when I was doing it the occupation of "driver", as opposed to taxi driver, was not an option to use when requesting a DBS check.
The whole taxi vs private hire (minicab) legislation is a complete mess, and the minor side show of "chauffeur in your own car" is no different. An intricate web of companies and subcontractors doesn't make it legal to do without Hire and Reward insurance, but it happens all the time.
It's hire and reward, all day long.
99% of the time you're going to get away with it, as you're not driving a mini cab, but you're driving the customers own car, and no one is going to bat an eyebrow if you're stopped. But when you have a serious accident, and there's a police investigation, hours of interviews, a court appearance, a coroners court appearance; that's when hiding the truth gets a whole lot harder. And that's when you need your insurance behind you.
99% of the time you're going to get away with it, as you're not driving a mini cab, but you're driving the customers own car, and no one is going to bat an eyebrow if you're stopped. But when you have a serious accident, and there's a police investigation, hours of interviews, a court appearance, a coroners court appearance; that's when hiding the truth gets a whole lot harder. And that's when you need your insurance behind you.
There is a statutory defence to no insurance where you are driving for an employer (B is paid by A, is driving for them under contract) where you have a reasonable expectation that you are insured to do so.
Assuming B has no sight of the insurance arrangement between A and C, as is usually the case for driving pool cars, etc, then B wouldn’t be privy to the limitations of the insurance and therefore should be able to avail themselves of this defence.
That said it sounds sketchy. As said in the opening reply, the man on the Clapham omnibus would read this as Hire and Reward. The fact C isn’t paying A directly is irrelevant. A sounds like they are trying to swerve getting B correctly insured because presumably the cost of H&R cover would impact their business. Sticking B as a named driver on C’s policy when they’re a chauffeur is obviously not the intent of that provision.
IANAL though.
Assuming B has no sight of the insurance arrangement between A and C, as is usually the case for driving pool cars, etc, then B wouldn’t be privy to the limitations of the insurance and therefore should be able to avail themselves of this defence.
That said it sounds sketchy. As said in the opening reply, the man on the Clapham omnibus would read this as Hire and Reward. The fact C isn’t paying A directly is irrelevant. A sounds like they are trying to swerve getting B correctly insured because presumably the cost of H&R cover would impact their business. Sticking B as a named driver on C’s policy when they’re a chauffeur is obviously not the intent of that provision.
IANAL though.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's hire and reward, all day long.
99% of the time you're going to get away with it, as you're not driving a mini cab, but you're driving the customers own car, and no one is going to bat an eyebrow if you're stopped. But when you have a serious accident, and there's a police investigation, hours of interviews, a court appearance, a coroners court appearance; that's when hiding the truth gets a whole lot harder. And that's when you need your insurance behind you.
But will the customer get away with it? Presumably they've added a named driver who's not technically insured?99% of the time you're going to get away with it, as you're not driving a mini cab, but you're driving the customers own car, and no one is going to bat an eyebrow if you're stopped. But when you have a serious accident, and there's a police investigation, hours of interviews, a court appearance, a coroners court appearance; that's when hiding the truth gets a whole lot harder. And that's when you need your insurance behind you.
randlemarcus said:
IANAL. As a man on the Clapham Omnibus, I would say that falls squarely into Hire and Reward. However, I know of a few people who provide this service without the middleman and take you to the airport in your own car. The one my mum used to use was an ex-copper, so always assumed it was kosher.
Agreed.The when and how you get paid doesn't come into it. If you are driving someone for money then it's Hire and Reward.
Most of the time you will get away with it because the car is insured and you are on the insurance, but if you get stopped by the police and they suspect you're being paid, how would you respond?
Insurance companies are not stupid, and contrary to popular opinion nor are most coppers.
It’s the same risk as carrying takeaways etc for your mate as a favour etc, and people do get done for that fairly regularly judging by threads you see here and there.
There does seem to be widespread ignorance about the nuances of car insurance, with people thinking they just need to consider commuting cover (even that has pitfalls - commuting is usually defined as being to and from a permanent place of work, not travelling to clients or carrying equipment etc). I think a lot of people, particularly younger people, are probably unaware that SDP&C doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with your car.
There does seem to be widespread ignorance about the nuances of car insurance, with people thinking they just need to consider commuting cover (even that has pitfalls - commuting is usually defined as being to and from a permanent place of work, not travelling to clients or carrying equipment etc). I think a lot of people, particularly younger people, are probably unaware that SDP&C doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with your car.
Of course the question of what happens if you get pulled over is an interesting one. But any ANPR check will show the car as being insured, in the same way as the wiser criminal has some insurance on the vehicle, rather than none. The fact that it is insured as belonging to your granny who lives in Little Piddling in the Marsh when you live in Birmingham and have a drunk driving conviction doesn't show up through ANPR.
Anecdote time - I was pulled over, quite justifiably, in Chelsea late one evening in a Range Rover. The bus in front of me slowed down, I assumed, for a a stop. I moved out to pull round it and saw it was actually at traffic lights, pulled back in behind it. Straight after the lights I was pulled over. "Is this your car sir?". "No", "whose is it" "Mr X", "Why are you driving it?" "Mrs X is in the back asleep, I do a drive you home service". Officer glances in the back, comatose is a better description of Mrs X, sprawled across the back seat. "Very good, off you go."
I don't know if it would have helped, but I chose the limited company route, rather than the self-employed route (as well as having H&R insurance) precisely because I thought it might have given me a little more financial protection in some unforeseen circumstances.
Anecdote time - I was pulled over, quite justifiably, in Chelsea late one evening in a Range Rover. The bus in front of me slowed down, I assumed, for a a stop. I moved out to pull round it and saw it was actually at traffic lights, pulled back in behind it. Straight after the lights I was pulled over. "Is this your car sir?". "No", "whose is it" "Mr X", "Why are you driving it?" "Mrs X is in the back asleep, I do a drive you home service". Officer glances in the back, comatose is a better description of Mrs X, sprawled across the back seat. "Very good, off you go."
I don't know if it would have helped, but I chose the limited company route, rather than the self-employed route (as well as having H&R insurance) precisely because I thought it might have given me a little more financial protection in some unforeseen circumstances.
craigjm said:
Not convinced it is Hire and Reward. That clause is intended to mean that you cant hire your car out and it be insured so you cant be a wannabe Europcar and that you cant be paid by others for its use so you cant use it as a cab or a wedding car.
Renting your car out for others to drive isn't hire and reward, it's self drive hire, a different type of insurance. Hire and reward is so the car can be used for the carriage of goods or people for money. In this case, the driver is carrying people for money. That's why it's hire and reward. Nurburgsingh said:
Aside from the H&R insurance question is there also a public liability aspect to consider?
No, all liabilities arising from the use of a motor vehicle are catered for under your motor insurance. Which is why public liability policies exclude incidents arising from the use of a motor vehicle. TwigtheWonderkid said:
craigjm said:
Not convinced it is Hire and Reward. That clause is intended to mean that you cant hire your car out and it be insured so you cant be a wannabe Europcar and that you cant be paid by others for its use so you cant use it as a cab or a wedding car.
Renting your car out for others to drive isn't hire and reward, it's self drive hire, a different type of insurance. Hire and reward is so the car can be used for the carriage of goods or people for money. In this case, the driver is carrying people for money. That's why it's hire and reward. …but it still doesn’t feel like hire and reward as you’re not trying to make money from your car, but simply avoid the hassle of driving?
PSRG said:
…but it still doesn’t feel like hire and reward as you’re not trying to make money from your car, but simply avoid the hassle of driving?
No the car is not being used for hire and reward. But the driver is. A licensed taxi consists of a licensed operator - the person who takes the bookings, a licensed vehicle, and a licensed driver. In the case of "chauffeur in your own car" the car does not need to be PH licensed, and as local authorities have no concept of the service, I'm pretty sure there is no means of licensing as an "operator". But the law is very clear that the driver is driving for "Hire or Reward". When I started I also worked for a PH company, so had a DBS check, although at one time a DBS check for one role theoretically wasn't transferable, I used it to offer some level of comfort to my clients.
As you mention, there is a whole world of HNWI - High Net Worth Individual" insurance, which tends to cover any car, any driver, and I guess would cover domestic staff, whether they are chauffeurs, nannies, escorts or whatever.
I’d want to see it in writing in a policy T&Cs before I relied upon that, to be honest.
I’ve heard of people getting different answers from Direct Line about PPF. They don’t cover it (any wrap, and PPF is just a transparent one), but people have managed to get a “yes” by using different phrasing etc, calling it “paint protection” and omitting “film”, etc, e.g. like ceramic coats.
I’ve heard of people getting different answers from Direct Line about PPF. They don’t cover it (any wrap, and PPF is just a transparent one), but people have managed to get a “yes” by using different phrasing etc, calling it “paint protection” and omitting “film”, etc, e.g. like ceramic coats.
You need to become an escort.
The client is paying for your time, you are not required to drive thier car, or have sex with them, but you do need to go where they are going and generally aim to please them. If they want you to assume the role of chauffeur, you are obliged to go along with it.
The client is paying for your time, you are not required to drive thier car, or have sex with them, but you do need to go where they are going and generally aim to please them. If they want you to assume the role of chauffeur, you are obliged to go along with it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff