Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see the poops are still trying to deflect from their own criminality and and abuses by whinging on about raynors buying her council house - now about election registration - anyone who owns a flat or house understands that you dont give up your and your childrens home just because of a new relationship and while we are on about that ..   lets start with When is jenrick being revisited for both lockdown abuses and self admitted (claims estate is his main home - not the property in his electorate or his london property) 'possible (lol) electoral registration abuses as he claimed he was at his estate 'main home' away from both London and his electoral 'home'  - much of which paid for by the taxpayer     Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick 'breaks lockdown rules twice' by going to 'second home' - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Key Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick drove 150 miles to his 'second home' after urging the nation to remain in their homes in a bid to...   ... perhaps follow with more self admitted lobbying while in a potion where they shouldn't “A few of us in parliament have lobbied the government – and with the help of the Treasury select committee, the chancellor has listened,” John Baron wrote.   Tory MP faces lobbying questions over Treasury committee role | Investing | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Co-owner of investment management firm called for ‘urgent’ post-Brexit changes to City rules at committee meetings     About time labour got in the game and started pressing for these self admitted/bragged Tory abuses were properly investigates.
    • No I didn't I got the dates mixed up.   
    • Sorry about that, TJ. The person who posted it specifically said it was free access. Here's another version of the FT article. https://archive.is/KYrPa
    • Isnt there some indication in there of at least intent to inform arbuthnot? IF he wasn't then it would seem to be Vennells decision to keep him 'uninformed .. Although seems to me if arbuthnot was unaware - he was either incompetent or should have very detailed records of denials. Seems vennells is constantly at the core of all the lying about all these issues though.
    • Paywalled/subscribe HB I'm unaware of the details on this HB but why is it a potential taxpayer burden? Hasn't a judge already ruled port has rights of access - so shouldn't costs be on the private company (South Tees Development Corporation) trying to change established access?     LIVE: High Court updates as CEO gives evidence in access rights row between STDC and PD Ports - Teesside Live WWW.GAZETTELIVE.CO.UK The face-off between the Teesport operator and Mayor Ben Houchen's South Tees Development Corporation continues in the High Court  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Employee uses car for work that insurance company wants to write off following a RTA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2538 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Risk is already subject to law e.g Road Traffic Acts. The employee has a contract of employment in regard to use of private vehicle and keeping it roadworthy. The employee according to the OP confirmed that they had made sure their vehicle was roadworthy. There is no legal requirement for a driver in this situation to go to a garage to obtain any new certificate of roadworthiness e.g new MOT. They already have an MOT and Insurance. Cat C is light damage, just not economic to repair on Insurance. It might have just been a bumper damaged and dented panel. If the car was only worth say £600, such damage might well be uneconomic on insurance.

 

I think we will have to disagree on the debate, as i don't think you will ever grasp the point being made. You don't seem to believe it is important to have a specific company policy on risk and for that to be important. You just seem to think it is ok, to deal with an issue such as this on an ad hoc basis, because one person in a company just happens to have had a conversation about an accident.

 

The challenge for the OP is whether their company sticks by current policy, that it is up to their employee to satisfy relevant laws or the company decides to get involved in this. It depends on the usage of these employees private vehicles, as to what practical policies they might decide on. I think i have heard of companies organising random inspections on private vehicles, because they were concerned about employees using private vehicles that were safe to drive.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

But there must be a direct relationship between act of a company and any liability caused. .

 

The only relationship needed is that the employee is acting in the course of their employment. There does not need to be personal wrongdoing by the employer for them to be liable to a third party for the acts of the employee. It is a vicarious liability.

 

The employee has a contract of employment in regard to use of private vehicle and keeping it roadworthy. The employee according to the OP confirmed that they had made sure their vehicle was roadworthy. There is no legal requirement for a driver in this situation to go to a garage to obtain any new certificate of roadworthiness e.g new MOT.

 

The employee has a contract of employment and the employer can require him to provide evidence of roadworthiness, it's a reasonable and legitimate instruction from the employer. That is a legal requirement, at least in the sense that contracts are legally enforceable documents. Refusal to comply could ultimately lead to dismissal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Article on the two step test for vicarious liability

 

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/vicarious-liability--the-two-stage-test/5040258.article

 

You really do need to think of the practical reality. The employee might already have MOT and Insurance that continues for the relevant period. I doubt that the company have any legal right to demand a new MOT if the current one is not due to expire for months and to go down dismissal route if the employee refused. The employee already has legal requirements placed on them by Road Traffic Acts etc

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who apart from you has recommended asking the employee to get a new MOT? I certainly haven't. What's been recommended is that the employee is required to get the vehicle inspected (by a professional - garage, by the AA (they used to do inspections of this sort) - confirming the vehicle's roadworthiness.

 

Hopefully you have now established to your satisfaction that an employer's liability for acts of employees is vicarious and doesn't require personal or corporate wrongdoing by the employer. It's some years since I qualified in this area so interesting to read the latest cases on what 'in course of employment' means although the cited cases don't change any of the principles which have been established in case law since the nineteenth century. They are usually fact-specific, many English law cases where it was found the employee had gone outside the scope of their employment involved employees assaulting members of the public - bouncers appeared frequently - but I'm not surprised to see that child abuse now appears in the law reports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How far does this employer liability extend in terms of checking once they have been made aware of something? If an employee furnishes a current MOT for a vehicle and there are advisories does this mean the employer can insist on seeing they are rectified by a professional before allowing the employee to use their car for work? Is an employer meant to note that tyres will need to be changed before the next MOT and check sometime in the intervening period? If the criteria for employer liability is knowing there could be an issue it could be a full time job for someone keeping on top of it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How far does this employer liability extend in terms of checking once they have been made aware of something? If an employee furnishes a current MOT for a vehicle and there are advisories does this mean the employer can insist on seeing they are rectified by a professional before allowing the employee to use their car for work? Is an employer meant to note that tyres will need to be changed before the next MOT and check sometime in the intervening period? If the criteria for employer liability is knowing there could be an issue it could be a full time job for someone keeping on top of it all.

 

Exactly right.

 

If an employer is demanding inspections on an employees private vehicle, then i would expect the employer to pay for the inspection. The employee already has a legal obligation for ensuring that the vehicle they are driving is roadworthy. Beyond the contract requirement and reminding the employee, i don't think the employer can insist on anything, unless they are willing to pay.

 

I get the point that by turning a blind eye to hearing of accident damage that the company would be taking a risk, but then they need to think about their whole policy of employees using private vehicles. An MOT only signifies a car is roadworthy on day of inspection. They might have staff driving their cars with illegal tyres and other damage, with no process of any reporting or regular inspections.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are convoluting something that is very simple. We are not talking about road traffic law. We are not talking about insurance law. We are talking about employment law. The OP had already said that there is no contractual term for employees to use their own vehicle for work. Therefore the PAYMENT of mileage is at the employers discretion - they can set any rules that they like and require any conditions they wish. A question about the insurance status of a vehicle that had been written off has arisen, and the employer is not satisfied with the answer given. They therefore require evidence that their terms (insurance covering business mileage, in that vehicle, and currently) is being met. Which is their right. That is the end of the matter. If they refuse, they may continue to use the vehicle for whatever they like, just not on the employers time and not claiming payment for mileage. That is always the employers prerogative. They can claim bus fares. Or they can ask the insurer to provide confirmation that they are continuing to provide insurance on the use of that vehicle for business purposes, despite having written it off. It is then up to the employee to decide which route they wish to take.

 

So arguing about what a category c write of means, or whether the road traffic act says this or that, is entirely irrelevant. The employer wants evidence to confirm that the employee remains coveted to use that vehicle. It is their right to ask that. And if the employee refuses to provide it, then they are certainly within their rights fyi refuse permission to use the vehicle for work, to refuse payment of mileage, and to wonder exactly why the employee refuses to comply with a reasonable request - the latter, of course, potentially being an offence for which they could dismiss if they were so inclined.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Employer pays mileage to cover costs and that is it. I suspect the employment contract states that the employers will pay this, at their discretion, because the amount of mileage to be claimed back, would have to be checked before payment made.

 

Quote me the employment law or case law that specifies that employers have any rights to require a vehicle to be inspected for roadworthiness, outside of the annual MOT which is a legal requirement.

 

It is up to the OP working with their companies management team to review the matter and work within the companies policies.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Employer pays mileage to cover costs and that is it. I suspect the employment contract states that the employers will pay this, at their discretion, because the amount of mileage to be claimed back, would have to be checked before payment made.

 

Quote me the employment law or case law that specifies that employers have any rights to require a vehicle to be inspected for roadworthiness, outside of the annual MOT which is a legal requirement.

 

It is up to the OP working with their companies management team to review the matter and work within the companies policies.

 

I did not say there was any such law. There doesn't need to be one. For reasons that I have explained at great length, and you appear not to notice. I would, however, suggest that you acquaint yourself with the health and safety legislation, which would perfectly adequately cover any situation in which an employer had cause to believe that an employee was putting themselves or others at risk during the commission of their duties.

 

However, I think we finally have agreement - employers don't have to pay millage allowances so they are at liberty to refuse to pay if they are not satisfied. For any reason. The employee does not have a right to use their vehicle for work, and if they wish to inconvenience themselves by catching the bus, so be it. On this basis I won't be explaining this to you any further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not say there was any such law. There doesn't need to be one. For reasons that I have explained at great length, and you appear not to notice. I would, however, suggest that you acquaint yourself with the health and safety legislation, which would perfectly adequately cover any situation in which an employer had cause to believe that an employee was putting themselves or others at risk during the commission of their duties.

 

However, I think we finally have agreement - employers don't have to pay millage allowances so they are at liberty to refuse to pay if they are not satisfied. For any reason. The employee does not have a right to use their vehicle for work, and if they wish to inconvenience themselves by catching the bus, so be it. On this basis I won't be explaining this to you any further.

 

I think it has been a worthwhile exchange of views, which the OP can use, when thinking about the steps they can take with their employers management team.

 

Many jobs e.g care sector, require employees to have access to their own car, to travel to clients homes to provide care visits. Part of the contract, is that mileage is paid. The number of miles might have to be calculated or they just check cars mileage. But given that the care assistant could not do ths job using public transport, the company has to pay the mileage.

 

Depends on the exact nature of the OP's companies business and employment contracts.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Why do you think that you don't need to tell the DVLA if your car is a write off? You certainly do and can be fined £1000 for not doing so potentially.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/scrapped-and-written-off-vehicles/insurance-writeoffs

 

https://www.gov.uk/written-off-vehicle

 

 

The OP says that the insurer has already declared the car a write off but they are arguing over the amount of the settlement. The decision has already been made by the insurer to write the car off so the OP's policy may no longer be valid. There is usually very little scope to argue the car is not a write off as you delegate this discretion to your insurer.

 

All insurers have a term of the policy very similar to this:

 

"Total loss of your car

 

If we decide that your car is a total loss as a result of an accident, theft, fire, flood or malicious damage we will reduce the claim payment by taking any part of the full premium you owe us. When we have made the full claim payment on this basis, we will have met all our responsibilities to you under your policy including the car hire benefit if purchased, and your car will become our property. Your policy, including the cover provided by the car hire benefit will then be cancelled (with any car hire car to be returned within 48 hours) unless we agree otherwise and we will not refund any of your premium. If you are paying by instalments, your full annual premium remains payable unless we have deducted this from your claim settlement. Please note that if we decide that your car is a total loss, the Section 1b driving other cars extension to your Section 1 policy cover does not apply and you cannot use this."

 

 

I would not want to be driving my car around after it has been declared a write off if I was arguing with the settlement amount as the insurance may not be valid.

 

If the insurance wasn't valid or was cancelled and there is an accident whilst driving in the course of employment then the employer becomes fully liable instead for the acts or omissions of their employees, I.e. any car accidents.

 

The OP also said something about them lying to the employer about using a hire car which is also concerning when really they're using their written off car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ganymede. I hadn't really been motivated to go read my insurance, but on checking, mine says the same thing. Employment is my "bag" rather than insurance. So I was just looking at it from the point of view of the employers concerns - especially regarding the claim to be using a hire car and the evasive answers to questions. I agree that the liability potentially arises because of these questions being unanswered, rather than a general policy matter. Assuming, like most employers in this situation, the employer has terms that require the employee to confirm their car is insured and "legal", the employer has done what they need to do. This specific situation arises from doubts that statement is currently true. Your contribution demonstrates that it may in fact be a realistic worry. If the employee isn't aware of this, they maybe should be thanking their employer for looking after their interests.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think that you don't need to tell the DVLA if your car is a write off? You certainly do and can be fined £1000 for not doing so potentially.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/scrapped-and-written-off-vehicles/insurance-writeoffs

 

https://www.gov.uk/written-off-vehicle

 

 

The OP says that the insurer has already declared the car a write off but they are arguing over the amount of the settlement. The decision has already been made by the insurer to write the car off so the OP's policy may no longer be valid. There is usually very little scope to argue the car is not a write off as you delegate this discretion to your insurer.

 

All insurers have a term of the policy very similar to this:

 

"Total loss of your car

 

If we decide that your car is a total loss as a result of an accident, theft, fire, flood or malicious damage we will reduce the claim payment by taking any part of the full premium you owe us. When we have made the full claim payment on this basis, we will have met all our responsibilities to you under your policy including the car hire benefit if purchased, and your car will become our property. Your policy, including the cover provided by the car hire benefit will then be cancelled (with any car hire car to be returned within 48 hours) unless we agree otherwise and we will not refund any of your premium. If you are paying by instalments, your full annual premium remains payable unless we have deducted this from your claim settlement. Please note that if we decide that your car is a total loss, the Section 1b driving other cars extension to your Section 1 policy cover does not apply and you cannot use this."

 

 

I would not want to be driving my car around after it has been declared a write off if I was arguing with the settlement amount as the insurance may not be valid.

 

If the insurance wasn't valid or was cancelled and there is an accident whilst driving in the course of employment then the employer becomes fully liable instead for the acts or omissions of their employees, I.e. any car accidents.

 

The OP also said something about them lying to the employer about using a hire car which is also concerning when really they're using their written off car.

 

The way i read this, is that the Insurers assessor proposed a Cat C write off ( uneconomic repair) and the claim is ongoing, as the write off has not been accepted. This is not a compulsory write off category, where the car has to be taken off the road immediately.

 

If the car was only worth say £1000, it cost £500 for 2 weeks car hire and £500 for bodywork repairs, then it would obviously be a write off. I remember on an car i had, wihich sustained bodywork damage, that if a garage touched it as part of an Insurance claim it would be a write off. Now i am lucky to have had family with decades experience with car repairs and it was dealt with at very little cost.

 

I don't find the circumstances explained by the OP to be odd. Pretty standard, where people are driving cars with a smallish value and they find themselves facing a write off because of the cost of garage repairs, hire cars etc.

 

My concern here is that the OP is paying attention to one case and his employers may have hundreds of other employees driving around in private cars, some of which are currently unroadworthy. In my opinion, you either trust the employee to comply with the law or you have a detailed company policy, because as an employer you are concerned about your employees using private cars during work time. If you are reacting to reports in a one off case, you need a worked out company policy to deal with it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...