My daughter is NOT self-employed but works for a company that requires her to meet clients within the region she works in.

Her contract does not state that she had to have a car but she has been told that she must use her car to go meet clients. Fair enough.

When she went to claim her fuel expenses they refused because they said she needs business insurance on her vehicle and once she produces a certificate to prove this they will then pay for the fuels at 45p per mile. W

Why should she have to pay for business insurance, it is not her business.

She has said she would be happy to get it insured for business and then claim it back from the company but they say they wont pay it.

She likes the job and does not want to leave but as I say this was not written in her contract. Others within the company have forked out for business insurance just to get peace but my daughter is taking a stand on this.

Where does she stand legally?

Any help or advice is much appreciated.

Because she is travelling to other places and not one permanent place of employment.

Its pretty standard.

I have to have business insurance as sometimes my place of work Is not always the main building.

It cost me £15 extra per year.

Just explain to insurance company that its for commuting to clients addresses.

Moved to motor insurance forum

Same as pizza delivery

You are using your vehicle to make you money

Must have business ins

Because she is travelling to other places and not one permanent place of employment.

Its pretty standard.

 

I have to have business insurance as sometimes my place of work Is not always the main building.

It cost me £15 extra per year.

Just explain to insurance company that its for commuting to clients addresses.

Ok thank you, I will pass this info on to my daughter. Thanks for the help

Be aware that some domestic insurance policies exclude commuting to work. Hire and reward exclusion is also quite common on most policies, and this would generally prevent anyone using their car for business use unless specifically stated.

Always read the small print, and if in doubt, get written conformation from the insurers.

Be aware that some domestic insurance policies exclude commuting to work. Hire and reward exclusion is also quite common on most policies, and this would generally prevent anyone using their car for business use unless specifically stated.

 

Always read the small print, and if in doubt, get written conformation from the insurers.

Ok will do I will pass this on to my daughter thank you for your valuable input

In some cases, mine for example, business insurance is slightly cheaper than standard.

I was shocked when i found out, don't know what sort of reasoning is behind it.

I'm with esure atm.

I have business use with my insurance, Not because i really need it, But with it added it was exactly the same price

Be aware that some domestic insurance policies exclude commuting to work. Hire and reward exclusion is also quite common on most policies, and this would generally prevent anyone using their car for business use unless specifically stated.

 

Always read the small print, and if in doubt, get written conformation from the insurers.

Yes always explain to insurers what you are using the car for so that they give you the correct cover.

Otherwise your daughter could be prosecuted for driving without insurance and all the serious consequences that could result from that.

Every insurer has their own wordings but generally what you [OP] describe is what's called personal business use.

It isn't hire and reward though.

Hire and reward is use as a taxi or minicab or courier, where someone pays you to take them or their goods somewhere.

It's normal for employers to insist that an employee using their own car on business has the correct insurance before reimbursing them the mileage.

Your daughter's argument that it isn't her business will get her nowhere and isn't worth raising.

Firstly it is her business, at least in the sense that she's an employee of the business and paid to do the job and doing the job requires her to drive to visit clients. And the employer would also no doubt argue that the mileage reimbursed includes reimbursement of the cost of buying business insurance.

If having your own car wasn't a requirement of the job I wonder what they would have said if your daughter had replied "I don't have a car"? Or "Yes I have a car but my partner uses it for work so it isn't available to me during the day"?

Legally she is fully entitled to say 'I didn't know I had to drive my own car and I'm not going to do that'. The, equally legal, result of that is she will be sacked.

Otherwise your daughter could be prosecuted for driving without insurance and all the serious consequences that could result from that.

In this scenario, it would not be driving without insurance and the vehicle should not be seized under those circumstances. If it was, there would be grounds for a complaint for wrongful seizure. There is a policy of insurance in place, it would just be the wrong type of cover and that would be a matter between the insurance company and the driver.

In the event of an incident while using the vehicle for business use, the insurers would have a statutory obligation to cover/pay out on the 3rd party risks and they can't avoid that (Road Traffic Act sections 143-162) but they'd be falling over themselves to not pay out on any damages to the insured parties vehicle, and most certainly wouldn't be.

But that's a separate issue to the company requiring that their employees have business use insurance in order to claim expenses. I'd say that that was fairly legitimate, and it doesn't cost a great deal of money. I think the last time I added business cover to my SDP policy, it cost me about £20 extra for the year.

If having your own car wasn't a requirement of the job I wonder what they would have said if your daughter had replied "I don't have a car"? Or "Yes I have a car but my partner uses it for work so it isn't available to me during the day"?

I used to work for a company that provided a couple of transit vans. From time to time, I was instructed to take one out to collect something. A task i would always refuse on the grounds that their insurance wouldn't cover me.

Although I had a full motorcycle licence, they never thought to ask if I also had a full manual car licence

In this scenario, it would not be driving without insurance and the vehicle should not be seized under those circumstances. If it was, there would be grounds for a complaint for wrongful seizure. There is a policy of insurance in place, it would just be the wrong type of cover and that would be a matter between the insurance company and the driver.

.

Not so I'm afraid. The insurance must cover the use you are making of the vehicle. That's why 'Use' is one of the statutory sections of the Certificate of Motor Insurance.

Tell all the piza delivery lads on mopeds on third party fire theft who have their mopeds siezed for wrong insurance..

I'm not saying (and did not say) that vehicles aren't ever seized under those circumstances. But the seizure would be on shaky ground.

The requirements, as set out in Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. (Paraphrasing) say that a vehicle must be insured against third party risks for it to be on the road.

Any motor vehicle insurance policy, no matter what the level of cover, must (and this cannot be avoided by the insurance company (RTA Section 148)) indemnify a third party no matter what! Which is why, for instance, insurers have to pay a third party claim against a drink driver, even if they wouldn't insure the said drink driver against their own losses. Otherwise, drink drivers would also be charged with driving with no insurance.

Therefore... Joe bloggs delivering Pizza on his moped with third party F&T which is insured for SDP only DOES have insurance, but it's the wrong level of cover, so the vehicle should not be seized for no insurance.

This is what should happen according to MIB. (No, not Will Smith )

https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2017/october/is-your-motor-insurance-keeping-you-on-the-right-side-of-the-law/

Items 2 & 3 on that list.

If a vehicle is stopped with the wrong class of insurance, although the vehicle would be insured against third party risks, which is the minimum legal requirement, a report would be submitted to the policyholders insurance company, who will then be after the policyholder for either extra premium to add the correct class(es) of insurance, or they could cancel the policy from inception.

It would need to be a serious breach of the insurance terms for a seizure to be legitimately made and to stand up if challenged.

Why would a seizure be on shakey grounds

If you are using your car to say deliver a pizza and you get stopped by the police and are found to not have the correct insurance, If they allow you to drive on after the stop, You still have the pizza in the car and so are still driving without the correct cover

There are plenty of instances including here on CAG where cars are taken for business use without a business policy

 

 

This is what should happen according to MIB. (No, not Will Smith )

 

https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2017/october/is-your-motor-insurance-keeping-you-on-the-right-side-of-the-law/

 

Items 2 & 3 on that list.

 

If a vehicle is stopped with the wrong class of insurance, although the vehicle would be insured against third party risks, which is the minimum legal requirement, a report would be submitted to the policyholders insurance company, who will then be after the policyholder for either extra premium to add the correct class(es) of insurance, or they could cancel the policy from inception.

 

It would need to be a serious breach of the insurance terms for a seizure to be legitimately made and to stand up if challenged.

I cannot find that last sentence (highlighted in bold) on the MIB webpage. Where does it appear there?

This sentence does appear though (my bold added):

MIB confirms what I posted earlier, driving outside the permitted class of use is illegal - "on the wrong side of the law" - so all the consequences of driving without insurance can follow, including seizure of the vehicle, and your conclusion that pizza delivery bikes without business insurance cannot be seized is wrong. OP's daughter likewise could have her car seized. Whether that would actually happen is, as always, at the discretion of the police officer at the time.

You have confused s148 with s151. When I was my company's motor insurance technical director it was one of areas most commonly confused by insurance trainees. s148 deals with circumstances where the policy holder has breached any of the policy clauses listed in s148 (2) . Driving outside the permitted classes of use is not one of those. A s148 payment is made under the contract of insurance and so would not normally make the insured liable to prosecution for driving without insurance although they could still be liable to reimburse the insurer for claims paid to third parties. s151 deals with payments the insurer has to make to third parties when there is a more fundamental breach of the policy, such as driving outside permitted class of use, which would allow the insurer to avoid the policy. Payments under s151 are not made under the policy (unless the insurer has waived or prejudiced their right to avoid the policy) but under a statutory duty. The making of a s151 payment to third parties does not mean that the insured is thereby covered by a policy of insurance so they are liable to prosecution and vehicle seizure even if the third party has had their judgement satisfied. s151 (and s148 for that matter) are intended to make sure that innocent third parties are compensated not to provide a shield to policyholders against a prosecution for driving without insurance.

You're correct. I did confuse 148 with 151. Both are about avoidance of indemnity though, and I'm a little rusty

As for the sentence you've highlighted. I was paraphrasing. But here it is as it appears on the MIB website.

A serious breach of the insurance policy terms could result in the police seizing the vehicle.

Note the words "Serious breach" and "could".

So..

Is having the wrong class of insurance a "serious breach"?

I'd say that that is subjective and largely depends on the circumstances. Someone with SDP+C that is using their vehicle to get to a work site other than their main one, I'd say not serious at all. So a fine & points issued and a vehicle seizure under those circumstances may not stand if challenged.

Someone with SDP only using a vehicle for business... Slightly more serious, depending on the actual use. I'm still not entirely convinced that it's serious enough for a, eFPN and seizure though. At the moment of the stop, they are insured for third party risks after all, which is all that the law requires.

Ultimately, each police officer is going to have their own ideas over what is a correct course of action in any particular circumstance, and each officer has to stand by and, if necessary, justify their actions/thought process. So where some would issue an eFPN and seize the vehicle, others would not.

I feel that those that do would be open to challenge as to whether or not the eFPN and seizure was justified. Whether someone would win or lose that challenge would again depend on opinion, this time of a Magistrate.

I'm not saying (and did not say) that vehicles aren't ever seized under those circumstances. But the seizure would be on shaky ground.

 

The requirements, as set out in Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. (Paraphrasing) say that a vehicle must be insured against third party risks for it to be on the road.

 

Any motor vehicle insurance policy, no matter what the level of cover, must (and this cannot be avoided by the insurance company (RTA Section 148)) indemnify a third party no matter what! Which is why, for instance, insurers have to pay a third party claim against a drink driver, even if they wouldn't insure the said drink driver against their own losses. Otherwise, drink drivers would also be charged with driving with no insurance.

 

 

Therefore... Joe bloggs delivering Pizza on his moped with third party F&T which is insured for SDP only DOES have insurance, but it's the wrong level of cover, so the vehicle should not be seized for no insurance.

 

 

This is what should happen according to MIB. (No, not Will Smith )

 

https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2017/october/is-your-motor-insurance-keeping-you-on-the-right-side-of-the-law/

 

Items 2 & 3 on that list.

 

If a vehicle is stopped with the wrong class of insurance, although the vehicle would be insured against third party risks, which is the minimum legal requirement, a report would be submitted to the policyholders insurance company, who will then be after the policyholder for either extra premium to add the correct class(es) of insurance, or they could cancel the policy from inception.

 

It would need to be a serious breach of the insurance terms for a seizure to be legitimately made and to stand up if challenged.

It is incredibly difficult for an Insurer to cancel the policy from inception (For obvious reasons), to be able to do this the Insurer needs to prove serious intent to defraud them. The policy would then be voided "Ab Initio"

Voiding a policy in such a way was very very rare in the past, it is even more rare now as thanks to the Insurance Derrgulation Act voiding the policy in such a way (Still) leaves the Insurer potentially liable for claims. The common way since the recent introduction of the Act is to cancel the policy giving seven days notice in writing.

This is a complex area and their is a High Court Case setting precident where a Taxi driver appealed against a no insurance conviction by claiming his private use policy provided cover under the RTA even though he did not have taxi cover. The court ruled against him.

I can never find this case, but if someone wants to spend time searching the web it is there, the drivers name was Ahmed or along those lines

The EU have been trying to ensure that third parties are covered either by the RTA or the MIB eg section 75 Insurer by trying to fill in any gaps. There are fairly recent (European) court cases where the court have ruled that "Any use" makes the Insurer liable under MIB (When not an RTA liability). The court was not ruling on use as in the topic but on another matter but they are trying their best to eleminate any situations where a case may not be covered by the RTA or the MIB.

I'm glad the High Court ruled against the Taxi driver. Driving a Taxi on a 'domestic' policy is extracting the yellow liquid. Taxi insurance costs a lot of money. I've met people that have been paying in excess of £2,000 a year for insurance when you take in to account the public liability aspect of it as well.

So trying to claim that your Taxi is covered on your SDP policy is a prime example of a "serious breach" of the insurance.

I'm glad the High Court ruled against the Taxi driver. Driving a Taxi on a 'domestic' policy is extracting the yellow liquid. Taxi insurance costs a lot of money. I've met people that have been paying in excess of £2,000 a year for insurance when you take in to account the public liability aspect of it as well.

 

So trying to claim that your Taxi is covered on your SDP policy is a prime example of a "serious breach" of the insurance.

Yes indeed, and that case (I don't know its citation either) illustrates what's already been said - the rights to compensation given to innocent third parties under RTA s151 or MIB aren't intended to protect the driver/policyholder against being convicted of driving without insurance.

Let me make it clear.

The wrong insurance is

NO insurance