RAC cover invalid if you have Class 1 business insurance

[ecs0set]

I attempted to renew my RAC cover today - we have had individual cover for myself and my wife for 20+ years - and discovered an issue. I did a search and couldn't find any PH articles covering it, so just a heads up...

Do you have Class 1 business insurance on your private car insurance? You know, the one you need if you claim mileage for travelling between offices? Well if so, your personal RAC policy does not cover you, even if you are not using the car for business purposes at the point when you breakdown.

Relevant clauses are:

• Cover is not provided for ... vehicles used for business, even if you are not using it for business at the time
• This policy does not cover... . your vehicle if it is used for business, including for example, company vehicles, vehicles that are sign–written, used for hire and reward, parcel delivery or linked to the motor trade, even if you are using it for personal use at the time of breakdown;

But my vehicle is not a company vehicle, is not sign-written, is not used for hire and reward, ...? Doesn't matter, the policy is not valid if you breakdown in that vehicle.

Business cover from the RAC is vehicle based rather than individual and does not seem significantly more expensive.

Edited by ecs0set on Wednesday 13th March 10:23

[RSTurboPaul]

ecs0set said:

I attempted to renew my RAC cover today - we have had individual cover for myself and my wife for 20+ years - and discovered an issue. I did a search and couldn't find any PH articles covering it, so just a heads up...

Do you have Class 1 business insurance on your private car insurance? You know, the one you need if you claim mileage for travelling between offices? Well if so, your personal RAC policy does not cover you, even if you are not using the car for business purposes at the point when you breakdown.

Relevant clauses are:

• Cover is not provided for ... vehicles used for business, even if you are not using it for business at the time
• This policy does not cover... . your vehicle if it is used for business, including for example, company vehicles, vehicles that are sign–written, used for hire and reward, parcel delivery or linked to the motor trade, even if you are using it for personal use at the time of breakdown;

But my vehicle is not a company vehicle, is not sign-written, is not used for hire and reward, ...? Doesn't matter, the policy is not valid if you breakdown in that vehicle.

Business cover from the RAC is vehicle based rather than individual and does not seem significantly more expensive.

Edited by ecs0set on Wednesday 13th March 10:23

May I ask if that is your interpretation of the clauses mentioned or if you have had it clarified in writing from the RAC?

[Baldchap]

How would RAC Breakdown ever know a private car was insured for business use unless you volunteered the information?

[Mad Maximus]

How would they know it’s insured like that unless it’s sign written? Just don’t tell them when you break down?

[ecs0set]

Baldchap said:

How would RAC Breakdown ever know a private car was insured for business use unless you volunteered the information?

Yes quite, but if you didn't know it was excluded, you may inadvertently volunteer the information. I'm not sure if they have the ability to check with MID, I'd hope not.

[ecs0set]

RSTurboPaul said:

May I ask if that is your interpretation of the clauses mentioned or if you have had it clarified in writing from the RAC?

With a bit of snipping, the clauses I quoted are verbatim from the policy document. RAC directed me to the policy document.

[garypotter]

it will depend on who you buy the RAC from or through, we sell it throguh work and it covers company vehicles, sign written vans, individuals for pleasure and or business use.

I am aware the policy direct is different and also if bought or add on to insurance policies.

If it was added on to your insurance policy that has business use then you may have been mis sold a policy.... complaint fca etc etc then maybe compensation.

if you have the time and can be bothered

[Olivergt]

I think it would be best to get that clause clarified to find out if it applies to Class1 or Class2 business use, as they are quiute different.

As far as aI know:

Class1 = Travelling between offices, generall free or very cheap to add to an existing insurance policy.
Class2 = You carry equipment/tools and travel to customer sites etc, may or may not be sign written. Would imagine this increases insurance premium somewhat.

P.S. Happy to be corrected on the above, I've just added class1 to my insurance (free) and the above was the impression that I got.

All I got for my Class1 was a letter that I can give to my employer which states the car is insured.

[RSTurboPaul]

ecs0set said:

RSTurboPaul said:

May I ask if that is your interpretation of the clauses mentioned or if you have had it clarified in writing from the RAC?

With a bit of snipping, the clauses I quoted are verbatim from the policy document. RAC directed me to the policy document.

If RAC didn't specifically answer a direct question along the lines of 'Is a vehicle insured under Business Class 1 usage covered by RAC recovery?', and instead said 'read this bit of the policy', that says to me that they haven't clarified it and are just relying on vague wording as a way to argue the toss later if required / are not fussed about whether you will be covered or not as long as they get your money up-front.

[ecs0set]

RSTurboPaul said:

ecs0set said:

RSTurboPaul said:

May I ask if that is your interpretation of the clauses mentioned or if you have had it clarified in writing from the RAC?

With a bit of snipping, the clauses I quoted are verbatim from the policy document. RAC directed me to the policy document.

If RAC didn't specifically answer a direct question along the lines of 'Is a vehicle insured under Business Class 1 usage covered by RAC recovery?', and instead said 'read this bit of the policy', that says to me that they haven't clarified it and are just relying on vague wording as a way to argue the toss later if required / are not fussed about whether you will be covered or not as long as they get your money up-front.

I specifically asked "Are you telling me that if I have Class 1 business insurance on my car insurance policy and that I very occasionally use my personal car for travelling between offices, totalling no more than 50 miles per year, then my RAC policy WILL NOT cover that vehicle even if it breaks down during non-business use?" to which the answer was "Correct, your RAC breakdown will NOT cover that vehicle at all".

Incidentally, I didn't specifically ask about this, it came up during the renewal questions. However, they were adamant that this wasn't a new change, they were just advising people because several breakdown callouts had been turned down as a result of people not being covered (believe as much of that as you like).

This breakdown cover was direct with RAC.

Edited by ecs0set on Wednesday 13th March 14:33

[RSTurboPaul]

ecs0set said:

RSTurboPaul said:

ecs0set said:

RSTurboPaul said:

May I ask if that is your interpretation of the clauses mentioned or if you have had it clarified in writing from the RAC?

With a bit of snipping, the clauses I quoted are verbatim from the policy document. RAC directed me to the policy document.

If RAC didn't specifically answer a direct question along the lines of 'Is a vehicle insured under Business Class 1 usage covered by RAC recovery?', and instead said 'read this bit of the policy', that says to me that they haven't clarified it and are just relying on vague wording as a way to argue the toss later if required / are not fussed about whether you will be covered or not as long as they get your money up-front.

I specifically asked "Are you telling me that if I have Class 1 business insurance on my car insurance policy and that I very occasionally use my personal car for travelling between offices, totalling no more than 50 miles per year, then my RAC policy WILL NOT cover that vehicle even if it breaks down during non-business use?" to which the answer was "Correct, your RAC breakdown will NOT cover that vehicle at all".

Incidentally, I didn't specifically ask about this, it came up during the renewal questions. However, they were adamant that this wasn't a new change, they were just advising people because several breakdown callouts had been turned down as a result of people not being covered (believe as much of that as you like).

This breakdown cover was direct with RAC.

Edited by ecs0set on Wednesday 13th March 14:33

Interesting... thank you for confirming!


That sounds like a ridiculous restriction that would be unenforceable and involve prejudice-based judgements being made.

I mean, if you are driving to an off-site meeting from your usual workplace in a suit and tie, does that mean the RAC patrol person is going to judge you as travelling for work unless you can (somehow?!) prove otherwise, therefore just leave you to your fate and abandon you at the side of the M25?

Whereas if your company has a dress-down policy and you are wearing crocs, tracksuit bottoms, a hoodie and 5-days of stubble, you will be just fine?


But then they appear to be saying that because you once used the car to travel to a meeting 8 months ago and were (and still are) appropriately insured, you RAC cover is null and void forevermore from that point in time?

What if you only purchase 'day cover' for Business Class 1 use and then remove it?

How could they check your insurance class, in both a practical sense and a legal sense?


Just odd.

[Mr-B]

Interesting info, thanks. I have just added RAC cover on a motor insurance policy that I declared a small amount of business use for (1000 miles a year), as I declared this and they were happy to take my money without throwing up a warning about no cover for business use they would be in a spot of bother I would think.

My get out will be if I am in a suit on my way to a business call and break down I will suddenly be on my way to a funeral should they ask.

[ecs0set]

RSTurboPaul said:

That sounds like a ridiculous restriction that would be unenforceable and involve prejudice-based judgements being made.

Yep

RSTurboPaul said:

But then they appear to be saying that because you once used the car to travel to a meeting 8 months ago and were (and still are) appropriately insured, you RAC cover is null and void forevermore from that point in time?

They are saying that technically, if you have Class 1 Business Insurance because you *MIGHT* travel for work, then your RAC cover is not valid even if you break down on your way to the supermarket. Which is as you say, odd!

Not knowing this, when I answered during the renewal quote that "yes I do have C1 Business cover", they wanted to CANCEL the current policy because it "did not meet my needs". To which my Pistonhead answer was "But it will cover me on my other cars which are not used for business?"!

[vikingaero]

With all the answers - the sensible thing to do would be to avoid the RAC and take out cover with AutoAid for £64-74.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Olivergt said:

As far as aI know:

Class1 = Travelling between offices, generall free or very cheap to add to an existing insurance policy.
Class2 = You carry equipment/tools and travel to customer sites etc, may or may not be sign written. Would imagine this increases insurance premium somewhat.

P.S. Happy to be corrected on the above, I've just added class1 to my insurance (free) and the above was the impression that I got.

All I got for my Class1 was a letter that I can give to my employer which states the car is insured.

Most insurers (not all) say.

Class 1 - Business use by policyholder and/or spouse (ex commercial travelling or non pre arranged appointments)
Class 2 - Business use by anyone else over and aboive policyholder and spouse (ex commercial travelling or non pre arranged appointments)
Class 3 - Commercial travelling or non pre arranged appointments

Then you have stuff above class 3, like mini cabbing and taxis, couriers, food delivery etc.

[jonwm]

I'm insured with the RAC with business cover and have breakdown cover and a bit worth th elaoer it's written on warranty by then too.

[808 Estate]

Strangely, my RAC cover was provided by my insurer who also know I have business use on my vehicle.

[Kinky]

It is clearly called out in the TS and C's, although not too clearly within the site itself.

Commuting IS covered, but not business use.

https://www.rac.co.uk/pdfs/breakdown/310314-drive-...

[vikingaero]

Kinky said:

It is clearly called out in the TS and C's, although not too clearly within the site itself.

Commuting IS covered, but not business use.

https://www.rac.co.uk/pdfs/breakdown/310314-drive-...

Sneaky sneaky by the RAC. Seems they want to strip out as much cover that they can get away with.

For the record I hate the RAC. If I ever buy a car with breakdown cover provided by them, I'd rinse the fk out of it. Reason: arranged breakdown company for a company I worked for, left the company, and around 10 years later got a CCJ when the company folded and the RAC wanted their pound of flesh. You would have thought the RAC legal team would know to issue a claim against the limited company.

[u6dw4]

RSTurboPaul said:

not fussed about whether you will be covered or not as long as they get your money up-front.

Which is basically their whole business anyway.

I just get through car insurance, nearly half the cost. Don't get a choice (but it's never RAC), but even they also take 6 hours to recover, at least it's cheaper.

I have class 1 as well (didn't know it was called that), I wouldn't be surprised they used it as a reason.