Employee crashes van in their own time

[shovelheadrob]

My son has a maintenance company, 10 vans used by employees & subcontractors for work, they're insured for work & travelling to and from, it's mutually convenient for them to work this way. They know that they're not allowed to use them for private/social domestic and pleasure use.
One of the drivers has stacked his van on Sunday morning, possibly due to excess from Saturday night, but not confirmed. He's hit the back of another vehicle, don't know the full extent of the damage & as it is apparently a hire vehicle, the driver's just given it back to the hire company. The van driver has said he'll get a loan to pay for the damage, but I think once the reality has struck home that might change. My son would prefer not to go through the insurance & I said that I don't even think that they would cover it as technically the driver has "taken without consent"
The driver has also said "let's call it a day" on his employment, which leaves my son a man down too (previous to this he's been a good worker), it's all a bit of a mess!
So....should my son just worry about getting his van fixed & leave the rest for matey boy to pick up the pieces, I've advised against trying to put it through his insurance, as that would mean having to lie about the use of the van..not good. I'm guessing that the hire company will just get it repaired through their own insurance & leave them to recover their losses.
Any advice welcome.
TIA

[shovelheadrob]

Countdown said:

Won’t the other driver (the driver of the Hire vehicle) have a massive excess to pay? Can’t see him being happy to be out of pocket...?

I would assume so but it could be a corporate hire, vehicle was a new Range Rover.

[shovelheadrob]

xjay1337 said:

Ultimately the buck stops with the driver of the van.

He used it when not insured, so he will be done for no insurance. Simples.

This is what I'm hoping for, with no comeback on my son other than the £4k cost of repairs to his van!

[shovelheadrob]

Drumroll said:

Just a few thoughts;

If your son does keep this driver, what does it say to his other employees?

Yes it's a difficult one, but irrelevant now as he's jacked

Drumroll said:

If another driver does the same what will he do then?

The other drivers don't take the piss, he has trackers on all vehicles & they know this, so did the driver in question though......

Drumroll said:

What have the police said?

We don't know, the driver say's that they attended & he passed a breathalyser but....
He (my son) has so far not been able to confirm this.

Drumroll said:

What have the insurance company said

Nothing, they're not involved yet.

[shovelheadrob]

Should he be reporting it to the police as TWOC?

[shovelheadrob]

Teddy Lop said:

I thought in incidence of driving outside terms, e.g. Using SDP and commute policy for work, insurance pays then may seek to reclaim from individual?

Perhaps he should have a conversation with his insurance company, he's hoping to avoid involving them as his premium is quite high for 10 vehicles already.

[shovelheadrob]

wattsm666 said:

Is it the insurance that prevents sdp or is that just the company rules. What does the insurance policy say

It's the insurance company, even his own van is business only use, including to & from work.

[shovelheadrob]

Gary C said:

Dont understand this.

The hire companies insurer will be contacting the insurance of the OP's son with a claim, no way to avoid it unless the driver has hit and run ?

I've told my son that this is the most likely outcome. Just trying to find out if he's (my son) liable in any way.

[shovelheadrob]

surveyor said:

Would it cost much more to add private use? If it does not I would seriously consider doing this, even if he does not tell the staff that they are insured...

I don't know if it's even an option, worth looking into although a bit horse, bolt, door lol!

[shovelheadrob]

Macneil said:

I can't see any alternative to informing his insurers, surely it is a conditionof the policy that they are informed of any possible issues that may give rise to a claim? The driver has to carry the can here. What if your son is drgged into some sort of insurance fraud case? what if he's refused insurance fr his business in the future? It's a no brainer, come clean, go by the book, throw the driver under the bus if neccessary or they'll all be out of a job.

This seems like the sensible approach, next year's premium's going to hurt! He's only had the company running for 18 months.

[shovelheadrob]

I've just had a conversation with my son & he's going to see if he can get the contact details for the hire company or the driver of the other vehicle so that he can speak to them directly. Depending on the amount of damage to their vehicle will decide whether to involve the insurers. He's not going to pretend that there was a job the driver could have been going to as that's just lying & opens up a whole world of pain, so the driver's on his own regarding insurance cover etc.
He's going to call the insurance company in the morning & put them in the picture & seek their advice on the matter.

[shovelheadrob]

Thanks for all the input so far, he does have trackers on all vehicles & the drivers taking the vehicles home works better for all concerned as it gives better coverage for reactive maintenance, which is the core demand of his business & he doesn't have storage/parking readily available for parking 10 vans. This is the first time anyone has done this, he regularly monitors the trackers & will be writing/emailing all employees to remind them that non business use is gross misconduct with the associated repercussions.
I'm done for tonight, supposed to be on holiday, I'll be back in the morning

[shovelheadrob]

KungFuPanda said:

The insurer of your son's van has a duty under the Road Traffic Act to settle all third party claims whether that employee was legally driving the vehicle at the time of the accident or not.

If indeed the employee was driving outside of the course of his employment and outside of the terms of the insurgance coverage, the insurers will seek to recover their outlay from the driver.

Your son needs to collate all the evidence he has to confirm he had in place a system and records to prove the fact that all employees knew they were not allowed to use the vans outside of the course of business or commuting.

Thanks, I wasn't sure on the legal standing on this, we'll find out more today hopefully.

[shovelheadrob]

Countdown said:

On the plus side the employee doesn’t have to drive back to base first thing in the morning / last thing before clocking off, he can drive directly between home and job location, so no time or fuel wasted on commute.

This is the main reason for taking the vans home, no one is forced to do it, it probably saves over 50 hours of driving each week, more earnings for the employee (they earn far more working than travelling) & more profit for the company, less pollution etc etc.

[shovelheadrob]

SmoothCriminal said:

Isn't this just a way companies scrimp on yard space and clog up residential streets with sign written vans.

That's one way to look at it, another way is that suitable yard space is neither cheap nor readily available, with adequate security, the costs saved mean more money in the pot for better wages/bonuses. The vans aren't sign written, not that it makes any difference, it's not like the streets aren't "clogged up" with company cars. Thanks for your input.

[shovelheadrob]

NotBenny said:

Why is your son working so hard not to drop this guy in it? He used the van when he's not allowed to, shunted it, and now has to deal with the consequences.


Or... is there more to it? is the official rule "no personal use" but in reality all the drivers do this, and your son knows about it? I wouldn't be willing to bend the truth/withhold information from insurers in this way, since there is a potential conviction for driving without insurance, I wouldn't want to be making statements or be seen to be PCJ. So, not wanting to jump to conclusions, be honest, did your son know that the vans were being used in this way, hence uninsured?

He's not trying not to drop the guy in it, he's just trying to find out the best way to handle the situation, as I said in an earlier post, the other guys don't take the pee & neither has this guy before.
Insuring the vans for private use is not an option with the current insurer AFAIAA.

[shovelheadrob]

FWIW said:

MDMA . said:

The trackers will list all movements at all times. You can set them to report between certain hours too. So, before/after 7am - 7pm. Normal 9-5 jobs would have finished commuting by then. Finding out who uses a vehicle for personal use is easy.

From what the OP said they are often on call out so he would need to cross check against timesheets. There’s no automatic way of doing that. I’m not buying it.

All jobs are allocated via an app, I'm an old fart so don't know all the ins &outs of it, but I'm pretty sure that this combined with the tracker logs would show unauthorised use. The "no private use" is part of their contracts.

[shovelheadrob]

Jasandjules said:

shovelheadrob said:

They know that they're not allowed to use them for private/social domestic and pleasure use.

Was this is writing ?

To be totally honest I don't know as I've not seen the contracts that he gives them.