Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Aesmith - Thank you for your recent interest in my issues.  Input on people's topics can be most useful from specialised experts or those that have similar experiences.  Some people really struggle with knowing what to do (I certainly do) - so it is most useful and helpful and reassuring when solid sensible advice is offered.  I have found there to be some very kind, helpful, supportive and legally knowledgeable people here on cag over the years - who give sound legal advice for people to roll up their sleeves and follow up on.   Of course, sometimes it can be quite challenging sifting the wheat from the chaff.  I don't have lawyer or barrister.  I sometimes attend pro-bono legal clinics for help.  And sometimes have access to barristers via a pro-bono service called Advocate.  Both ad-hoc. Pro-bono means 'free'
    • The Judge was wrong. The keeper is only INVITED to say who was driving, there is no obligation for them to say.
    • Member of the Question Time audience asks Richard Tice about Donald Trump.    
    • I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you . 
  • 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
      • 161 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

Company car insurance - paying for damage to


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5577 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

Apologies if not the appropriate forum, but perhaps quite an unusual query. Basically, have worked for a prestigious car dealership for last 3 years and have enjoyed the benefits of a company car (for which I obviously pay company car tax!!) As a salesperson using a dealership company car, it is naturally insured by the dealership fully comprehensively.

Due to an increase in accidents and claims during 2007-8, the insurance company have increased their excess to a whopping £10,000 (so I am informed?) The net result is that any damage caused by whatever means (i.e. vandalism (whilst sleeping!!) i.e. sides of the car 'keyed' or impact damage is to be paid for by the individual, not the company, as the dealership tells us that understandably they will not pursue any damage through insurance due to the £10,000 excess!!

I have had a clean driving record for last 3 years and then, this morning, on approaching a t-junction (bus parked in front of me waiting to turn), and at speed of seriously no more than 10-15mph (due to ice on road), I applied the brakes only to find NO traction at all!!!!! It was literally like skating on ice and the car gracefully slid, albeit slowly into the back of the parked bus. (Driver told me he was driving this road since 6am and it was the WORST he had encountered). Lady driver behind me actually slid ACROSS the road into a lampost not 10 minutes later.

Am awaiting the estimate for repair, but my GM has already spoken with me and told me that in all likelihood I will have to pay for the damage. Likely to be in region of £1,000 to £1,5000. Would not accept my mitigation. In fact, my colleague had to repay £1,000 last month for his company car being 'keyed' whilst he was in his house fast asleep.

It worries all our staff as accidents do happen, and I am not allowed to either (a) take out any form of insurance to cover myself as I have already looked into this, and (b) although a company car is deemed to be a 'perk', it is inevitable that at some stage more accidents or damage will occur and each time it will be deducted from our salaries. We have no say in this matter and has already happened on two occasions to my colleagues last month.

Does anyone have any knowledge as to the legitimacy of this procedure? Is there an insurance that will cover a salesperson who changes demonstrator cars every 3-6 months for this type of incident? Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated. By the way, please dont get me wrong, if any driver is acting recklessly etc - then this is perhaps understandable as a company stance. But at slow speed, and braking not being effective on icy road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds entirely unfair. Either they insure the vehicle for you or you should be able to insure it yourself. Are they going to charge you for a replacement vehicle if it gets completely written off through no fault of yours - e.g. if it was hit whilst parked?

 

Having said that, I don't suppose this is a situation which comes up very often, so though I would like to direct you somewhere for professional advice, I have no idea where.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that if my company attempted to impose that condition on me (£10,000 excess) I would simply hand the car back and state that I was refusing to accept such a blatantly unfair term.

 

At the very least, I would withdraw, in writing, any ability under their car scheme to make any deduction from wages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also go and get a competitors car and drive that around, it would annoy them no end, seriously though, it seems dreadfully unfair, I too, would hand the keys back.

 

What does your employment contract say?

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly there is little you can do in this instance.

 

Big excesses are normal in the environment you work in, £10,000 is quite a common one. There are insurers who offer insurance policies for this type of excess, they work like the CDW's you get offered when you hire a car.

 

In this instance there are no mitigating circumstances, the road was icy, you failed to appreciate that and drove without due care and attention, the result was you had an accident. Accordingly, your employers will now look to you for the cost of repairs.

 

You asked if this was legitimate, presumably you were aware of this large excess before the accident and you accepted it. It is legitimate, it's not unfair and it's fairly standard in your industry.

 

As others have pointed out if you don't like it you can always give up the Company Car and use the savings in tax to fund your own vehicle, or you can seek out an insurance policy to cover the big excess.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big excesses are normal in the environment you work in, £10,000 is quite a common one. There are insurers who offer insurance policies for this type of excess, they work like the CDW's you get offered when you hire a car.

 

This would appear to provide an answer - supplementary insurance cover.

 

However, OP posted

 

It worries all our staff as accidents do happen, and I am not allowed to either (a) take out any form of insurance to cover myself as I have already looked into this,
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Pat I saw what the OP posted, but, there is nothing whatsoever to stop the OP from taking out their own seperate insurance policy to cover the excess, and to some extent these policies are easier to arrange because it is for a known fixed sum, ie a maximum of £10,000.

 

The OP needs to clarify why they feel they are not allowed to do this, I have never heard of an employer saying to employees that they do not allow them to arrange this type of cover (usually they welcome it since in the event of a big claim they know that the excess payment will be swift, I know I would struggle to instantly come up with £10,000), and certainly there is nothing in law to stop the OP arranging this type of cover.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your advise and comments. I am still awaiting any final decision on the deduction, i.e. all of part of it to be paid by myself.

 

Big excesses are normal in the environment you work in, £10,000 is quite a common one. There are insurers who offer insurance policies for this type of excess, they work like the CDW's you get offered when you hire a car.

 

A year ago I phoned many of the large insurance companies because I was aware that accidents can happen and was concerned about this. But I was informed that no policy existed (similar to CDW) as we change our cars every 3 months or so and also can be in a different car every week; it had to be particular to a registration - so was unable to cover myself.

 

Yes, I am seriously considering opting out of the Company car scheme which is undoubtedly the route to go (for peace of mind).

 

Again, thank you all for your comments and helpful advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a company called Insurance4excess (or something very close to that) who offer an annual policy to cover a CDW. It's aimed at people who hire cars on a regular basis, but I mention them because they obviously allow for changes of vehicle (ie diiferent hire cars) in an annual period.

 

To be honest the registration number is irrelevent in your case, you are NOT insuraing a particular car, you are insuring a known risk, ie the amount of the excess.

 

I suspect you probably went to an Insurer who doesn't usually offer this policy and hit the stumbling block about registration number because their system needs one to proceed to quote.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...