Other Sports0 min 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.
I always read policy terms carefully before I take out a policy. Many years ago, when we were able to have a hire car instead of using our own car for work-related trips, I dropped "Business" use from my policy. Ten years ago, when I retired, I dropped "Commuting" from it, both times making a saving. I always buy my insurance online and tick the boxes for the cover I need.
Yes I have heard of this more and more of late, SDP usually did include commuting but recent changes of operation by insurers has meant that commuting is in effect excluded, usually by not being explicitly mentioned. Worth checking your insurance certificate. Plod is a bit heavy handed here but in in reality if it comes to a claim situation then such drivers are in effect un insured thus leaving 3rd parties un covered.
Well the clause has been there since I started driving to work and I guess that's about thirty years ago....and I don't think it was new then. It used to be there were 3 kinds of fully comp....social domestic and pleasure, which is what I have now, SDP and travelling to and from work, and what used to be called "full class A" which was social domestic and pleasure, commuting AND use while at work. Every insurance quote I have ever had has asked me what I was planning to do with the car and although the wording has changed, the options remain the same.
The 'commuter clause' addition has as far as I can remember benn around for at least 20 years. It obviously added cost to the policy.
The driver in the above link was also reported for an incorrect address on the policy. I consider the police were assuming the driver was trying to get a cheaper policy by reducing the risk by opting out of commuter 'extras' and may well have been quoting a cheaper address as well.
The driver in the above link was also reported for an incorrect address on the policy. I consider the police were assuming the driver was trying to get a cheaper policy by reducing the risk by opting out of commuter 'extras' and may well have been quoting a cheaper address as well.
-- answer removed --
Yes, 3Ts is quite correct.
Many drivers seem to adopt a somewhat cavalier attitude to insurance in some respects. This restriction has been imposed by most major insurers for a number of years and to plead ignorance of it simply demonstrates my point. I’ve just done a dummy quote on “comparethemarket.com”. Question 1 concerns the details of the vehicle. Question 2 is about the vehicle’s usage. There are three options: (a) Social, Domestic and Pleasure; (2) Social, Domestic, Pleasure and Commuting; (3) Social, Domestic, Pleasure and Business. Option (2) is described as “This is the above [SDP] but also includes commuting to and from your single permanent place of work”.
There is no excuse for either (a) not realising there is a difference or (b) realising it but breaking the conditions. To do so means you are driving uninsured. The consequences (for others) of you doing so can be disastrous so the police are quite right to do all they can to prevent uninsured driving. There is nothing “heavy handed” about it. A driver is either insured or he is not and to detect a driver using his vehicle beyond the scope of his policy is just as important as detecting one with no policy at all.
Many drivers seem to adopt a somewhat cavalier attitude to insurance in some respects. This restriction has been imposed by most major insurers for a number of years and to plead ignorance of it simply demonstrates my point. I’ve just done a dummy quote on “comparethemarket.com”. Question 1 concerns the details of the vehicle. Question 2 is about the vehicle’s usage. There are three options: (a) Social, Domestic and Pleasure; (2) Social, Domestic, Pleasure and Commuting; (3) Social, Domestic, Pleasure and Business. Option (2) is described as “This is the above [SDP] but also includes commuting to and from your single permanent place of work”.
There is no excuse for either (a) not realising there is a difference or (b) realising it but breaking the conditions. To do so means you are driving uninsured. The consequences (for others) of you doing so can be disastrous so the police are quite right to do all they can to prevent uninsured driving. There is nothing “heavy handed” about it. A driver is either insured or he is not and to detect a driver using his vehicle beyond the scope of his policy is just as important as detecting one with no policy at all.
There is not a 'Clause'.
The permitted use and use that is not permitted is clearly shown on the Certificate of Insurance.
I'm looking at mine now, which states "Social, domestic and pleasure and travel between home and a permanent place of business and use in connection with the Insured's business".
Couldn't be any clearer.
If I wasn't insured for commuting, it would say so under the use not permitted section of the certificate.
Driving outside of the use permitted by the certificate is one of the very few defences insurers have under the Road Traffic Act.
The permitted use and use that is not permitted is clearly shown on the Certificate of Insurance.
I'm looking at mine now, which states "Social, domestic and pleasure and travel between home and a permanent place of business and use in connection with the Insured's business".
Couldn't be any clearer.
If I wasn't insured for commuting, it would say so under the use not permitted section of the certificate.
Driving outside of the use permitted by the certificate is one of the very few defences insurers have under the Road Traffic Act.
I hold no brief for insurers but that’s a little unfair, OG.
They have to try to balance their premiums so that those presenting the greatest risk pay the greatest premiums (and vice-versa). It’s clearly not possible to identify the individual risk that every driver poses but obviously a driver using his car daily through rush hour traffic presents a greater risk than one who does not.
They have to try to balance their premiums so that those presenting the greatest risk pay the greatest premiums (and vice-versa). It’s clearly not possible to identify the individual risk that every driver poses but obviously a driver using his car daily through rush hour traffic presents a greater risk than one who does not.
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.