I wasn't sure if this should go in employment or motoring section but thought as it's mostly about employment to,post in employment section - I hope that's ok?

This is my query.

A has been involved in a road traffic accident - A was in a line of traffic when the car in front of A stopped suddenly. A respond quickly and stopped in time and did not hit the car in front. Unfortunately the car behind A didn't respond so quickly which resulted in A's car being hit from behind by B. B's insurance company has admitted full liability.

Insurance company has informed A that car is a write off (Cat C I believe). A states that the insurance company has not inspected the car but has decided to write car off due to age and market value of car. A is not in agreement with amount offered by insurance company for the car (says amount offered is too low) and is arguing with insurance company regarding settlement.

Today A reported to employer they have repaired the car themselves (A is not a qualified mechanic) and is now using the car again for work. A is paid mileage from employer. A had told employer they were using a hire car.

My questions are:

Should A be driving the car whilst the dispute is going on?

Is A still insured to drive this car considering the insurance company want to write it off?

Can A's employer ask A to provide evidence the car is safe/roadworthy and if so what would the employer ask for as proof - an MOT dated after the accident/report from a qualified mechanic?

If there was a charge for this report is it the employers responsibility to pay for it?

Can the employer insist A supply evidence the car is insured following the accident?

If A has another accident in the car could A's employer be held liable for allowing A to use the car for work without obtaining evidence that the car is roadworthy and insured?

If so, where does A employer's stand if A refuses to obtain requested evidence of A's car being roadworthy and insured?

Thank you for any and all advice given.

A should check with his/her own insurance to see if car is still insured after RTA. It would be B's insurers who want to write off A's car i assume and not A's.

All of your other questions can be simply answered, if A uses his/her own car for work related travel and is paid a fee based on mileage etc then it is fir A to ensure thatbthe vehicle is fully road legal. A's employer will have no interest in the car itself, they dont own it so it's not their concern other than to oay mileage in relation to its use.

If A's car has been written off already then it will need to undergo a VOSA inspection prior to being legally on the road to assess the quality of the repairs done and deem roadworthy or not.

Didnt they get rid of the vosa inspection ?

Didnt they get rid of the vosa inspection ?

Yes, i think they did and you would just need to go through MOT process.

In regard to this issue.

Cat C write off just means that from Insurers point of view, the repair is uneconomic, because of new parts being required and garage labour costs. It does not mean the car is in an unroadworthy condition to drive and it will not have been reported to DVLA as a write off.

So no issue if it is being driven as a Cat C and it is the drivers responsibility to ensure the car is not presenting a hazard to other road users. If the Police pull the car over and deem it unsafe to drive, then it could get quite expensive, as no doubt you would get fined, possible costs if taken to Police pound etc.

If this car is repairable more cheaply using 2nd hand parts and own labour, then you can probably negotiate a cash settlement and keep hold of the car. You don't have to accept write off by Insurers if the damage is Cat C. As long as the claim amount is no more than it would be for a write off taking into account salvage value, then it should not be an issue.

The employer is probably not interested and it is up to their employee that they comply with road traffic law.

You should check how much it would cost to repair the car using second hand parts, assuming the car is not in mint conditions and the damage is not structural.

So if it's a new bumper, see how much it would cost to get one from a scrapyard or many sites selling savaged parts (you might get lucky and find same colour as your car).

Then report this price to the insurance which would be more inclined to pay it, rather than paying for brand new parts and painting labour.

Unfortunately that's the problem of driving an older car, insurance will often write off a perfectly good runner just for some cosmetic damage.

In respect of the employer queries, it isn't the case that the employer probably won't be interested. If they aren't, then they are idiots!

If the employee uses a personal vehicle for work as a requirement of their job, and is paid an allowance or costs for that vehicle, then the employer had a legal duty to ensure that the vehicle is legally on the road. That means that they should, as a minimum, be asking the employee to confirm that the car is roadworthy, taxed, and with an MOT and insurance. They may ask to see any documents confirming this that they wish, and it is the employee's responsibility to provide these (and at their own cost if there is one - which there usually isn't,). If the employer cannot provide evidence of this, it is possible that they could be held liable or partially liable for the actions of the employee in the event of an accident.

In the employers shoes, I would not be satisfied with the assurance that a repair that my employee did themselves - given that I have been told this is the case - would satisfy that requirement, unless the employee was qualified to do that repair. It may well be the case that the original damage was not, in itself, significant - but an improper repair could itself render the vehicle unroadworthy. I would certainly want formal verification of its roadworthiness by either the insurance company confirming they are happy with this repair, or by a qualified mechanic. The key issue here is knowledge - if the employee has told them then they cannot say they didn't give " permission" for the employee to use the vehicle for work, and therefore potentially share liability.

If A refuses to supply any required evidence, then what could happen depends on the wording of the contract. The most obvious outcome is that they don't get paid allowances or costs. If the performance of the job depends upon the provision of a vehicle by A, then they could be dismissed.

I am interested in the wording "A had told employer that they were using hire car". The way this is phrased suggests that A was lying about this. If this is the case and the employer finds out, then this could be deemed as gross misconduct. And if A has already done this, even if the employer found out at a later stage, the lie remains potentially gross misconduct. Lying to an employer about something goes to the heart of the contract, and in this case would have potentially put the employer at risk. The fact that it didn't does not change the situation.

I suppose it depends on type of employment and how the vehicle is being used. The employer might wish to avoid getting involved in checking employees vehicles, unless there is a liability risk.

I suppose it depends on type of employment and how the vehicle is being used. The employer might wish to avoid getting involved in checking employees vehicles, unless there is a liability risk.

The employer doesn't need to get involved in checking employees vehicles. They simply need to insist certain criteria and conditions are met by the employee. If the employee then lies to them, it is on the employee's head, and potentially a dismissable offence. Doing that manages the employers risk, and they can happily throw the employee to the wolves.

The rest of this situation is down to the insurers and the individual to sort out.

Thank you all for your posts and the great advice. I'll answer all the questions - please let me know if I missed any of them. I'll also give a little more background information.

I'm not A, I attended a work meeting with A yesterday when A gave an update. I'm not A line manager but I do supervise staff and within my role I am responsible for ensuring all staff info is kept up to date and meets the mandatory requirements of their employment - things like training, DBS checks, ID badges in date, training etc. The employees are mostly community based workers so they don't have to have a car for work but in reality it would be extremely difficult to do their jobs if they didn't have transport.

Part of our employers policy on paying mileage is that all cars must be roadworthy and be covered for business use on their motor insurance. I am required to keep copies of all staff motor insurance certificates and ensure that they meet the set requirements by our employer. It's part of he conditions for them being paid mileage.

At the meeting yesterday A was asked how they were following the car accident. It was then A informed employer they were using their own car again. A had told employer they were being given the use of a hire car after the accident.

A said that it is their insurance company that want to write the car off. A does not want to do this and feels the car is fine to use.

When questioned about the damage to the car A said they had done the required repairs themselves and the car was ok to drive. A was asked if the car had been checked by a professional to which A responded everything was ok and the car was fine.

A did confirm the insurance company has not paid out yet as they are disputing the amount offered for the car. A said they intend to purchase the car back from the insurance company.

I did ask A if the car is still insured and whether the insurance company have confirmed A is insured to use the car on the road. A replied why won't I be? - they had not asked their insurer if the car was still insured to use on the road.

TBH something about all of this just isn't "sitting right" with me and my intuition is telling me there is more going on than A is disclosing - A can be very vague and difficult to pin down. However neither my manager or I have ever experienced anything like this before.

My main concern is for A safety and whether they are driving around in a car that is unsafe and uninsured. Obviously I want to make sure I am doing my job correctly but from a personal stance now I know about this situation I have a moral responsibility to ensure A isn't put themselves or others at risk.

Personally i would ask the insurance company to settle cash in liue. As this way there is no marker on the vehicle. Also you keep the vehicle.

Personally i would ask the insurance company to settle cash in liue. As this way there is no marker on the vehicle. Also you keep the vehicle.

That might well be the option they decide on.

In regard to this situation. It is quite possible this car is roadworthy, but it would be uneconomic for a garage repair to get back to perfect condition. Cat C write off just means uneconomic repair and does not mean the car should be off the road. The Insurance would therefore still be in force.

As an employer, you should just remind the employee of their terms and conditions relating to use of their own vehicle for work. You have therefore reacted to what you were told and would not be expected to do any more.

I don't agree. The OP feels that something is not "quite right", and it is their job to protect the employer in this matter. Whilst the OP may quite rightly be concerned about the employee and their safety, the employer could end up liable for someone else's if the employee is involved in an accident. The OPs responsibility here is clear. They are not satisfied with the answer to their question about insurance. They therefore need to advise the employer that they need to obtain evidence from the employee that the insurer is currently satisfied that the car is roadworthy after this accident, and if they cannot provide that, they need the employee to provide a mechanics report stating that it is. And these documents need to be kept on file. And the OP needs to do this in writing in order to protect themselves.

I don't agree.

Nor do I. The employer has conditions the employee must comply with to use their own vehicle on the employer's business, including insurance and roadworthiness. The employer is therefore not only entitled to ask the employee for any reasonable evidence to show these conditions are met it also would also be foolish of the employer not to satisfy themselves the conditions have been met. The employer has a (vicarious) liability for the acts of its employees. If the employee's car in this case is not insured, or if it purports to be insured but because it is not roadworthy the employee's insurance is invalid, injured third parties could come after the employer for compensation. So OP is quite right to require whatever evidence they consider appropriate that the employee is complying with his employment conditions for the use of his own vehicle on the employer's business.

That doesn't mean that the employer has to routinely require documentary evidence of roadworthiness, but where, as here, the employer has been put on notice that there might be issues, the employer would be negligent not to investigate the matter further.

Thank you all so much for your extremely helpful advice.

I am going to write to the A and ask them for evidence that their car is roadworthy and insured. If A doesn't provide the required documents within 10 days then I will inform them that until the required documents are provided they must not use their car during working hours.

If A ignores this then disciplinary action may have to be taken but hopefully this scenario will never happen.

I will let you know what happens - once again thank you so much for sharing your expertise, knowledge and advice with me, I am incredibly,y grateful. X

Thank you all so much for your extremely helpful advice.

 

I am going to write to the A and ask them for evidence that their car is roadworthy and insured. If A doesn't provide the required documents within 10 days then I will inform them that until the required documents are provided they must not use their car during working hours.

 

If A ignores this then disciplinary action may have to be taken but hopefully this scenario will never happen.

 

I will let you know what happens - once again thank you so much for sharing your expertise, knowledge and advice with me, I am incredibly,y grateful. X

Don't give them 10 days. That is far too long for something that should be very simple to obtain. You just need an email from their insurers (not from them saying their insurers agreed!) saying that they are satisfied the car is roadworthy after the accident and they continue to provide insurance for the vehicle for it to be used on the road at this moment in time. Or a letter on headed notepaper, which they could fax to you? When a claim is active, it takes very little time to turn around these sorts of things. Certainly not ten days. I'd say five working days is more than enough. There's no complexity to the request - they either are happy to provide cover on this vehicle right now, or not. Every day that this uncertainty continues in your mind, the more risk the employer takes on. And in the end, it is in the employee's interests too - they may not appreciate it, but you are exercising your responsibility of due care for their safety and best interest.

A few points.

Insurance companies don't require certificate of insurance to be returned on cancellation and insurance is not automatically cancelled following a Cat C write off claim. So the employee is likely to show certificate of insurance.

The vehicle is likely to still have an MOT and a Cat C write off evaluation does mean the MOT certificate is no longer valid. There is no legal requirement to have a new MOT or other inspection. I doubt the contract of employment requires this. It might be different if it were a commercial vehicle such as a lorry, where there different laws applying.

So you are likely to be shown current insurance cert and MOT, plus you might get a letter from employee stating vehicle roadworthy. If they do that, there is not much more you can do.

If you are going to have a consistent practice as employers, you must now draw up a new set of guidelines that cover this issue. You can't pick on one employee without following through. You might therefore decide to send all employees using a car for work purposes an addendum to contract, stating that they must report all accident damage to vehicles within say 7 days. That they must stop using accident damaged vehicles, until they have had them inspected to confirm road worthiness etc. You need to speak to your companies HR Director and possibly legal.

edit, additional points.

What you can't have is a situation, where your company only deals with the issue you personally hear about. Always important to evidence that you have a consistent policy or if you have spotted a gap that you now look to amend your companies policy. Otherwise you risk a situation, where someone else in the company is aware of an accident damaged vehicle causing another liability and It is then seen you did something in this case, but not the other one. Not having a consistent policy might just cause you more of a problem.

One reason you might want to get legal opinion, is where the line is drawn between the employees and employers responsibilities. Don't drag your company into having more responsibility for such issues, without thinking of the consequences. Once you set a precedent of checking an employees position after accident damage to a personal car used for work purposes, then you have to follow this through as now standard practice.

I don't agree. The employer is not legally obliged to pay millage expenses at all, and if they are contractually entitled to such expenses then that is conditional upon them meeting the employers requirements. If the employee refuses to comply with a request to evidence that the insurance company agrees that the car is still insured as roadworthy, the employer is quite entitled to withdraw expenses until that evidence is provided. The employee isn't required to provide a car for work - the employer isn't required to pay them to do so.

And the OP is not dragging the company into liabilities that don't exist already - the company has potential liability for the employee's actions during work time, and if that includes driving a vehicle they are concerned about the safety of, then it is a potential risk to them. What the insurance companies policies are about how they determine a settlement are irrelevant in the field of employment. The employer can ask for anything they like, and if the employee doesn't comply then they can withhold payments of mileage. And it is rubbish that you can't treat employees differently. You can. You can't if the reason for that is because of a protected characteristic. This is not the case here. It is because the OP has serious concerns about what the employee is telling them and is concerned that they are evading the truth.

However, I do agree that where the car used is written off after an accident, or where it is declared unroadworthy, whatever the reason for that, employees should be required to notify the employer. It doesn't need to be after any accident damage, only where the damage impacts on roadworthiness. And if they continue to use the same car, they should need to provide evidence that the insurers have agreed to continue the cars insurance liability. For most of us that isn't a problem. We either don't have that car on the road again, or we have evidence of the repairs. But an employer certainly has the right to question a DIY job by someone without any skills or experience, assuring them that a car is roadworthy without any evidence that is the case.

Neither of us to be fair have seen the employment contract, employees handbook setting out company standards and all other documents. We don't know how exactly they are using a private vehicle for work purposes. We don't know why the mileage and other expenses are being repaid by the employer. We don't have full understanding of the potential liabilities without all of the information.

For a private vehicle owned by the employee, if it has a current MOT, then it is the drivers responsibility under Road Traffic Acts to ensure that it is roadworthy and does not present a hazard to other road users. The contract of employment, no doubt drawn up with legal advice, seems to support the employee having a continuing responsibilty of ensuring their vehicle is roadworthy.

I don't think it is a very good idea for an employer to start blurring the lines in regard to the responsibility of the employee in ensuring roadworthiness of their private vehicle. Is the employer going to start being responsible for vehicle maintenance costs, MOT's etc ?

In my opinion the OP would be wise to speak to their HR Director and to get legal advice, before they drag their employers into a position they might not want to be in. Companies i have worked for have always preferred to hire/lease vehicles, rather than let employees use their own vehicles, for some of the reasons talked about on this thread.

For a private vehicle owned by the employee, if it has a current MOT, then it is the drivers responsibility under Road Traffic Acts to ensure that it is roadworthy and does not present a hazard to other road users. The contract of employment, no doubt drawn up with legal advice, seems to support the employee having a continuing responsibilty of ensuring their vehicle is roadworthy.

 

I don't think it is a very good idea for an employer to start blurring the lines in regard to the responsibility of the employee in ensuring roadworthiness of their private vehicle. Is the employer going to start being responsible for vehicle maintenance costs, MOT's etc ?

I don't see any lines of responsibility being blurred. The employee remains responsible for ensuring that their vehicle is roadworthy as a condition of their employment. The employer is merely asking for evidence that the employee has complied with that condition. The employer isn't proposing to take on vehicle maintenance and inspection themselves. An entirely reasonable request. It protects the employer for one thing. An employer can be legally liable to third parties if their employee injures or kills someone in the course of their employment. If the employee's insurance turned out to be invalid because the vehicle was not roadworthy the employer could be sued.

I don't see any lines of responsibility being blurred. The employee remains responsible for ensuring that their vehicle is roadworthy as a condition of their employment. The employer is merely asking for evidence that the employee has complied with that condition. The employer isn't proposing to take on vehicle maintenance and inspection themselves. An entirely reasonable request. It protects the employer for one thing. An employer can be legally liable to third parties if their employee injures or kills someone in the course of their employment. If the employee's insurance turned out to be invalid because the vehicle was not roadworthy the employer could be sued.

So you would terminate this employees employment, if they only confirmed current MOT and Insurance certificate, without evidence of a garage having confirmed the car is currently roadworthy ?

If so, on what grounds ?

If you are a care providing company and all care workers used their own cars for visiting clients, would the care company be liable if the employees car had an accident, while not having a current MOT ? Going by your comments, if the care company had a policy of checking MOT's and Insurance on an annual basis, they might somehow carry some liability for their employees accident during work time ?

In my example a care company could be liable if they scheduled client home appointments, without allowing their employee sufficient time to travel betweem appointments and having applied pressure about being late for appointments.

I hope the OP takes further advice, as some offered here might inadvertently leave their employer more exposed than they might have been had they done nothing.

It's certainly turned into an interesting thread and has raised multiple points. Thank you all for all your posts and for sharing your views/thoughts/advice.

I will speak with my manager and HR department and see what course of action they wish to follow.

So you would terminate this employees employment, if they only confirmed current MOT and Insurance certificate, without evidence of a garage having confirmed the car is currently roadworthy ?

 

If so, on what grounds ?

 

If you are a care providing company and all care workers used their own cars for visiting clients, would the care company be liable if the employees car had an accident, while not having a current MOT ? Going by your comments, if the care company had a policy of checking MOT's and Insurance on an annual basis, they might somehow carry some liability for their employees accident during work time ?

Of course I cannot answer a hypothetical question like whether I would dismiss the employee - no-one could without access to all the employers policies and the evidence trail and hearing what was said at any disciplinary hearing. That's scoring debating points, not asking a question that could be answered.

Anyway, you wouldn't start with dismissal. You'd refuse to let him use his car on company business. But ultimately if the employee refused to comply with the request and couldn't do his job without using his car then the employee would likely end up dismissed for breach of contract. And quite right too. And likely to be upheld as a fair dismissal at Tribunal on grounds of SOSR.

The circumstances with this particular employee are different from the generality of employees because the employee has made statements that cast doubt on whether his car is roadworthy. The employer having been put on notice it would count against them in court if they did nothing to satisfy themselves the vehicle is roadworthy. That does not mean that the employer needs to routinely ask every employee to prove roadworthiness. But yes, maybe they do need to clarify exactly what they need from employees who use their own vehicles. Checking driving licences is as important, if not more important, than the vehicle. I spent years of my working life advising companies on this, one of my clients introduced licence checking for its sales reps and discovered nearly 5% of them were, or had been whilst in their employ, banned from driving for drink driving offences!

You seem doubtful that employers could be liable for acts of their employees when driving. They are. There are case precedents from here to end of my road that employers are generally liable for torts committed by their employees in the course of their employment. With motor vehicle claims the claim in practice is paid by the employee's motor insurer and so there is no need for a third party to make a claim against the employer, but that doesn't affect the general principle.

Yes i understand that in certain circumstances an employer might have some liability in regard to an accident caused by an employee driving their private vehicle whilst on company business. Hence why i gave the example of the care company. But there must be a direct relationship between act of a company and any liability caused. Another example might be a company being aware that their employee has a health condition, but still requires them to drive a vehicle for company business.

The point i was making, is that if you are going to have a company policy of checking everything e.g annually for Insurance/MOT's, licences, notification of accidents, vehicles not being in a good state of repair, make sure you have a robust policy. Not just a one off, where you did not like something said in a conversation. If it was of such major concern, that an employee was driving around in a vehicle in a dangerous condition during work time, then immediately take acton. Advise the employee they must stop driving the vehicle for work, until they have something in writing from a garage that the car is roadworthy.

But be aware that the more an employer has such a thorough policy, if they failed to administer the policy properly and something happens, then they are more likely to be liable. It would seem the OP's employer currently makes the employee responsible for complying with the relevant laws, with a relevant clause in the employment contract. The employer has not sought to take any responsibility and it might be for sound reason of not wanting to get involved. Does not mean that the employer avoids any health and safety obligations to their employee.

 

But be aware that the more an employer has such a thorough policy, if they failed to administer the policy properly and something happens, then they are more likely to be liable. It would seem the OP's employer currently makes the employee responsible for complying with the relevant laws, with a relevant clause in the employment contract. The employer has not sought to take any responsibility and it might be for sound reason of not wanting to get involved. Does not mean that the employer avoids any health and safety obligations to their employee.

That argument is ridiculous. An employer does not make themselves less liable if they don't bother to develop a policy, or more liable if they produce a thorough one that isn't implemented. They will be liable, or not - the thoroughness of their policy makes no difference. By your argument, if employers developed polices for nothing, they would never be liable for anything.

The point is that there is an identified risk. This single occurrence has identified a risk - which is quite commonly the way that risks are identified. But in this instance, the employees own evasive conduct has been the cause of their account being questioned. I do not need to see contracts and policies to know that the employer must act on a questionable situation which could impact on the health and safety of an employee and the businesses clients or the general public. The OP has a question about the safety of the vehicle being used for business purposes. The employee needs to satisfy that query. Because the law says that it is their duty. It does not require complex policies or intricate discussions. It simply requires the employee to provide proper confirmation that they continue to be covered whilst driving a vehicle which the insurers say is written off. If the insurers are not able to say that, then the employee is driving without insurance, which is illegal.