Technology2 mins ago
How Long Have Insurance Companies Inserted The Clause 'not To Be Used For Commuting', In Their Policies?
87 Answers
http://
I wonder how many working age motorists, use their vehicles only for 'Social, domestic and pleasure purposes?
Mind you these days, 'pleasure purposes' is a laugh, who gets pleasure from motoring on the roads today?
I wonder how many working age motorists, use their vehicles only for 'Social, domestic and pleasure purposes?
Mind you these days, 'pleasure purposes' is a laugh, who gets pleasure from motoring on the roads today?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"It is often hinted on here:
....
“Your insurance could be invalid if you have a bald tyre”
....
None of these is true"
New Judge. I agree with almost everything you say, and understand the MIB/insurer relationships (later post refers), but I wouldn't want ABers to think that, in principle, and sometimes in fact, they would not be left £thousands out of pocket because their insurance was “invalid' or however else you’d like to describe it.
The type of s.148 condition is found in the General conditions of a motor policy and, therefore, applies to the whole policy, including the third party section. The bald tyre example is not the best one but, in principle, it’s no different from a drink driver condition (also embedded in s.148) which has allowed at least one insurer to recover enormous amounts (albeit through a civil action) from their own policyholder in respect of payouts to victims. Perhaps it’s semantics, but I can’t see how a policyholder in such a scenario would describe it other than invalid insurance.
The same applies to your point about disqualified driving. The insurer can still recover sums it has paid out to the victims of the disqualified driver. I am grateful for your confirmation that the disqualified driving policyholder will also be committing an uninsured driving offence.
You make an interesting point about ‘use’. I seem to recall there were discussions about closing that ‘loophole’ in the RTA but I don’t think anything came of it.
....
“Your insurance could be invalid if you have a bald tyre”
....
None of these is true"
New Judge. I agree with almost everything you say, and understand the MIB/insurer relationships (later post refers), but I wouldn't want ABers to think that, in principle, and sometimes in fact, they would not be left £thousands out of pocket because their insurance was “invalid' or however else you’d like to describe it.
The type of s.148 condition is found in the General conditions of a motor policy and, therefore, applies to the whole policy, including the third party section. The bald tyre example is not the best one but, in principle, it’s no different from a drink driver condition (also embedded in s.148) which has allowed at least one insurer to recover enormous amounts (albeit through a civil action) from their own policyholder in respect of payouts to victims. Perhaps it’s semantics, but I can’t see how a policyholder in such a scenario would describe it other than invalid insurance.
The same applies to your point about disqualified driving. The insurer can still recover sums it has paid out to the victims of the disqualified driver. I am grateful for your confirmation that the disqualified driving policyholder will also be committing an uninsured driving offence.
You make an interesting point about ‘use’. I seem to recall there were discussions about closing that ‘loophole’ in the RTA but I don’t think anything came of it.
Yes Woof, that makes sense.
The point is that anyone who uses their car to continue on after arriving at their first place of work cannot just rely on 'commuting' insurance.
I go to several places to start my work driving lorries, but only ever one place each day. I can just have commuting insurance
The point is that anyone who uses their car to continue on after arriving at their first place of work cannot just rely on 'commuting' insurance.
I go to several places to start my work driving lorries, but only ever one place each day. I can just have commuting insurance
I have been motoring for a very long time and can never remember being asked more than Fully Comp, Third Party Fire and Theft and Social Domestic & Pleasure.
Social: Taken to mean, partying, popping down to the pub etc.
Domestic: Ferrying the wife and family about and going to work.
Pleasure: Ah! The freedom of the open road, the joys of the countryside, picnics etc.
I'm about to phone my insurance company I think I am entitled to a rebate, I only use my car once a week nowadays. :0)
Social: Taken to mean, partying, popping down to the pub etc.
Domestic: Ferrying the wife and family about and going to work.
Pleasure: Ah! The freedom of the open road, the joys of the countryside, picnics etc.
I'm about to phone my insurance company I think I am entitled to a rebate, I only use my car once a week nowadays. :0)
-- answer removed --
AOG - of course I have but I don't do it on a daily basis as regular commuters do. Insurance companies attempt to assess the risk you are to them so factors like your usual address, where you keep the car overnight, annual mileage, driving record and how you use the car all all taken into account. I normally keep my car in a garage attached to the house overnight but very occasionally it is left on the drive and sometimes nowhere near my house eg, when on holiday. I don't commute but occasionally I use the car in rush-hour. We live near the M4 and each morning listen to the traffic reports and try to guess where today's accident is going to be - commuters seem to think there is an obligation on one of them to have an accident each day, usually around Slough, Swindon or Cardiff. Because I don't USUALLY take part in such games I don't expect my insurance company to load my policy for it. On the other hand I drive around 16,000 miles a year - more than avarage, so I DO expect the higher risk of driving more miles to be reflected in my policy costs.
Do you think that all drivers should pay the same premium, regardless of the car they drive, where they live and how much they use the car?
Do you think that all drivers should pay the same premium, regardless of the car they drive, where they live and how much they use the car?
AOG....it was a daft question, because the answer was in the link you gave and my contribution was to point that out.
Having 63 answers doesn't mean it was a sensible question.....many pointed out that you missed the information given in the link.
I'm sure that my contribution wouldn't be missed....rather like most of your posts, usually on one of three done-to death subjects.
Having 63 answers doesn't mean it was a sensible question.....many pointed out that you missed the information given in the link.
I'm sure that my contribution wouldn't be missed....rather like most of your posts, usually on one of three done-to death subjects.
They didn't, he was asked where he was going and answered, "To Work". Where upon his vehicle was deemed to be not insure and impounded. How plod was able to deduce that it was uninsured for work purposes so quickly is a mystery. I wonder if there is previous here, or plod targeted him for whatever reason? However it would appear that, once again, telling the scuffers the truth is a short cut to bother.
“…but I wouldn't want ABers to think that, in principle, and sometimes in fact, they would not be left £thousands out of pocket because their insurance was “invalid' or however else you’d like to describe it.”
Yes I understand where you’re coming from, Arrods.
I think my mistake in all of this is concentrating on the criminal aspect (i.e. “am I insured or not for purposes of the RTA?”) because that was the emphasis in this question. The topic began because the driver had his car seized as he did not have insurance that covered him for the usage in question. I quite agree that a driver could well avoid prosecution for No Insurance but could find himself on the wrong end of an action by his insurers to recover their outlay. It is always interesting to mull over a topic from a different aspect and I’m grateful for the clear way you explained your point.
“Just out of interest, how did the police know he was commuting to work before they stopped him?”
They obviously did not. But I imagine they stopped him for something else and simply asked him what journey he was making. I also not (as mentioned earlier) that his address did not tally with that on the policy. No doubt the one he gave his insurers was “nicer” than his real one. This alone is grounds to retrospectively cancel the policy and make him uninsured.
Yes I understand where you’re coming from, Arrods.
I think my mistake in all of this is concentrating on the criminal aspect (i.e. “am I insured or not for purposes of the RTA?”) because that was the emphasis in this question. The topic began because the driver had his car seized as he did not have insurance that covered him for the usage in question. I quite agree that a driver could well avoid prosecution for No Insurance but could find himself on the wrong end of an action by his insurers to recover their outlay. It is always interesting to mull over a topic from a different aspect and I’m grateful for the clear way you explained your point.
“Just out of interest, how did the police know he was commuting to work before they stopped him?”
They obviously did not. But I imagine they stopped him for something else and simply asked him what journey he was making. I also not (as mentioned earlier) that his address did not tally with that on the policy. No doubt the one he gave his insurers was “nicer” than his real one. This alone is grounds to retrospectively cancel the policy and make him uninsured.
Roadside "spot" check Judge, and immediate impounding of vehicle. Now if the full policy is available during a database check from either the MIB (who I doubt carry that info)or the insurers themselves, then plod showed amazing speed reading skills in picking the bones out of the small print on the policy. I always thought that the info plod was able to gather using their ID roadside and traffic gizmos was only a confirmation of road tax, vehicle ownership, and valid insurance for said vehicle. I still doubt that they have access to the full policy details. The software required would be pretty sophisticated to be working 24/7 at a minutes notice. I think it is all DVLA supplied, who themselves do not have the policies on their database. Still who knows? I still would speculate that there is a bit of previous.
Yes I agree that some element of “intelligence” was probably involved with this stop. However:
“Now if the full policy is available during a database check from either the MIB (who I doubt carry that info)...
Yes they do.
“….then plod showed amazing speed reading skills in picking the bones out of the small print on the policy.”
They don’t have to possess such skills.
The MIB database to which police have access at the roadside contains the following information:
• Policy number
• Effective and expiry dates
• Policyholder name and address
• Named or excluded drivers
• Permitted driver and class of use requirements
• Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM)
There have been numerous incidents where (in particular) drivers have been stopped whilst delivering takeaway food, telling the police that they were simply “helping out” and were not employed. The police can immediately tell whether the vehicle is covered for business use and take the appropriate action (leaving a court to decide, if necessary, whether the extent of “helping out” constituted business use). There was a caller to a radio phone in held this morning on this very subject. He had been stopped whilst delivering medicines from a pharmacy (again “helping out”). He received a Fixed Penalty of £200 and six points.
Leaving aside the commuting issue for a moment, this problem with delivery drivers is widespread. They are driving without insurance because they need cover for business use whilst making their deliveries. Even if they are just “helping out” it makes no difference. In the event of an accident they will have no Third Party cover as the law requires.
“Now if the full policy is available during a database check from either the MIB (who I doubt carry that info)...
Yes they do.
“….then plod showed amazing speed reading skills in picking the bones out of the small print on the policy.”
They don’t have to possess such skills.
The MIB database to which police have access at the roadside contains the following information:
• Policy number
• Effective and expiry dates
• Policyholder name and address
• Named or excluded drivers
• Permitted driver and class of use requirements
• Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM)
There have been numerous incidents where (in particular) drivers have been stopped whilst delivering takeaway food, telling the police that they were simply “helping out” and were not employed. The police can immediately tell whether the vehicle is covered for business use and take the appropriate action (leaving a court to decide, if necessary, whether the extent of “helping out” constituted business use). There was a caller to a radio phone in held this morning on this very subject. He had been stopped whilst delivering medicines from a pharmacy (again “helping out”). He received a Fixed Penalty of £200 and six points.
Leaving aside the commuting issue for a moment, this problem with delivery drivers is widespread. They are driving without insurance because they need cover for business use whilst making their deliveries. Even if they are just “helping out” it makes no difference. In the event of an accident they will have no Third Party cover as the law requires.
The whole point of insurance is to share risk; so it isn't in the interests of the insurance companies to split the customer group up too much. Taking it all the way would simply result in individual pricing whereby one lot of potential customers wouldn't need insurance so wouldn't buy it, whilst the other lot would need it but couldn't afford the massive premium nor would they benefit as the premium would be greater than any bill coming their way.
The question is how far down that slippery slope can they reasonably go. I have my doubts that the additional risk of being in the rush hour getting to work is worth dividing from the additional risk of the unemployed who have the opportunity to drive all day.
But the main issue is that folk are not becoming aware. It's all very well disparaging the buyer as they should read everything and understand it, but it's human nature not to get that embroiled and stressed. A good system/process should identify human failings and ensure they are compensated for.
It seems to be that this is one of those occasions when a company has apparently slipped in a restriction, must know it'll likely be missed, and which will absolve them of responsibility. As such at he very least it should be obligatory to have such "get-outs" indicated with high visibility, the buyer's attention being inevitably drawn to it.
As for myself, I've never thought to check for such a thing, I just tick the requirements, answer the questions and expect the insurers to supply the correct product. I suspect the vast majority do much the same. It appears to me to be a "gotcha" pure & simple.
The question is how far down that slippery slope can they reasonably go. I have my doubts that the additional risk of being in the rush hour getting to work is worth dividing from the additional risk of the unemployed who have the opportunity to drive all day.
But the main issue is that folk are not becoming aware. It's all very well disparaging the buyer as they should read everything and understand it, but it's human nature not to get that embroiled and stressed. A good system/process should identify human failings and ensure they are compensated for.
It seems to be that this is one of those occasions when a company has apparently slipped in a restriction, must know it'll likely be missed, and which will absolve them of responsibility. As such at he very least it should be obligatory to have such "get-outs" indicated with high visibility, the buyer's attention being inevitably drawn to it.
As for myself, I've never thought to check for such a thing, I just tick the requirements, answer the questions and expect the insurers to supply the correct product. I suspect the vast majority do much the same. It appears to me to be a "gotcha" pure & simple.
"It seems to be that this is one of those occasions when a company has apparently slipped in a restriction,..."
No they haven't, OG.
It's question number two on most quotes/proposals, second only to what vehicle is to be covered:
"What purpose(s) will you use the vehicle for?"
It's no more a "restriction that has been slipped in" than it is to confine the policy to a particular vehicle. Driving a motor vehicle brings with it important but straightforward responsibilities. The proposer is asked clear and simple questions to which he needs to give clear and truthful answers. The onus is on him to ensure he has the insurance that meets his needs and complies with the law. If he cannot handle that without confusion then he should consider whether he ought to be driving.
No they haven't, OG.
It's question number two on most quotes/proposals, second only to what vehicle is to be covered:
"What purpose(s) will you use the vehicle for?"
It's no more a "restriction that has been slipped in" than it is to confine the policy to a particular vehicle. Driving a motor vehicle brings with it important but straightforward responsibilities. The proposer is asked clear and simple questions to which he needs to give clear and truthful answers. The onus is on him to ensure he has the insurance that meets his needs and complies with the law. If he cannot handle that without confusion then he should consider whether he ought to be driving.
The tweet from West Yorkshire police was timed at 3:36pm on Saturday - why would you think someone was commuting in the middle of a Saturday afternoon? I could understand the police thinking someone using their car at 8:80 am or 6pm on a weekday was commuting but few people would be commuting on a Saturday afternoon. Someone suggested that "intelligence" was involved when he was stopped; I agree with that.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News10 mins ago
Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector...
News14 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.