Driving without business use insurance

[newcat12345]

Husband who rarely uses my car was stopped driving home from a meeting today. I only have social, domestic and commuting insurance as don't need it for work purposes and this was a total oversight.

Even though I rectified the situation straight away with the insurer, DH has been slapped with 6 points and a £300 fine . To my mind a ticking off would've sufficed but that's neither here nor there.

My real concern is that I now have to go back to the insurer to tell them about the points. Is there a risk they will revoke the policy or are they likely to view it as an oversight? Petrified

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Insurer

Explains the situation. Even if there’s a breach of the doctrine of utmost good faith which voids the policy between the policyholder and the insurer the insurer will still be liable to meet claims by third parties which is all that the law requires you to have.

OP really don’t worry too much about it. Call the insurer, disclose the points and get business cover put on the insurance. It’s not like he’s been involved in an incident which would lead to a claim under the policy.

It only doesn’t make sense to you because you’ve obviously got no idea about the minimum 3rd party insurance requirements that the road traffic act provides.

No it didn't make sense to me because it was very badly written.

I'm confused now.

1- I regularly work at 2 different sites but same company. I have an office in both. Stay at the same site all day. Do I need business insurance for that?

2- I've twice in 5 years needed to travel from one site to another in the same day. Do I need business insurance for that?

Thanks

@springtime12
I’ve had insurance with 5 different companies and both those scenarios would require business insurance.

Check the wording on your policy.

I am genuinely shocked by the lack of understanding on how car insurance works on this thread. Although on reflection the number of people in real life I have met who don’t have it when they need it as ‘they’ll just lie to the police if they are stopped’ is also shocking.

If you are in any doubt, ask for it to go on your policy. Honestly, it might not make any difference to the cost and, if it does it is a really minimal amount.

According to this: police.community/topic/131820-drivers-without-business-insurance/ it doesn't seem that clear cut that he even was driving without insurance. As a pp said, the insurance company would still have had 3rd party liability, even if your own costs weren't covered if he'd 3an accident. Personally I'd get legal advice before accepting the points.

The legal issue surrounding the 3rd party cover is completely separate to the police fine and points.

If you ever work anywhere that isn’t your usual place of work then you do need business insurance.

When I was employed, it was written in our contracts that we had to have it as we were expected to visit clients and other offices, which falls outside commuting.

Springtime I wouldn't think you'd need it other than the twice in 5 years. However it as other posters have said basic business insurance doesn't cost that much, if anything. The basic business insurance is not for reward or hire but covers you going from one site / office to another.

I'm thinking taxi's clearly need a "hire" insurance, but just being curious about take-away delivery drivers does they fall under the "reward" category? I'd lay a bet they'll be many young drivers using their own cars to get some extra cash that don't have adequate insurance.

The legal issue surrounding the 3rd party cover is completely separate to the police fine and points

How is it separate? Because if you have 3rd party cover, then you're not uninsured?

Yes get advice before taking the points. His own insurance may cover him for the business element too.

"No reason, just random pulling over in a lay by, lots of other cars." Is that what he's told you?!

They can't and don't stop for no reason!

They have to have cause and as the car was "generally" insured and I'm assuming mot'd and taxed? And in a state of good repair and the licence plate not obscured? Then the licence plate checking thingy (the name of which bloody escapes me now 🙄) wouldn't have picked up that particular issue either.

He was likely speeding as that's the most common offence and they tend to focus resources on "hot spots" - areas with high fatality & serious injury rates - especially if during the day on a normal day (ie not a bank holiday)

Although he could also have been messing on phone or not wearing seatbelt - you know him so will know what's more likely.

Think you need to dig a bit deeper.

Quite honestly it sounds like he also was obstructive/provocative in some way eg not stopping as soon as asked OR was speeding massively over the limit.

My brother is a police officer, so of course has done his time on traffic duty, his best friend is now in charge of organising where police vehicles are placed to monitor speeding etc - not sure what the role is called but it's his job to organise the resources for catching dangerous drivers. It's all about the "fatal 4" - speeding, drink/drug driving, mobile phone use while driving and not wearing a seatbelt.

An insurance anomaly of this type wouldn't have shown up until AFTER they stopped him and checked the details.

"If, say, you were in an accident while travelling to a meeting off site, would the insurance company ask you why/where you were travelling at that particular time?" Of course! Because their aim at this stage is to avoid paying out!

"It’s not like he’s been involved in an incident which would lead to a claim under the policy." I think she needs to double check with dh on this, potential awkward/confusing conversation with insurers if he's actually got the points for a separate offence or he's been done for the insurance and something else. Because at some point the facts will be recorded with the dvla and if you haven't kept insurance company fully informed that invalidates insurance too.

Graphista says a lot of sense.

The only time I've seen random pull over checks is around the festive season when they are looking for drink driving.
Something must have been said for them to check for business insurance.

As an aside, I'm very grateful to this thread because I checked our insurance documents to ensure that I'd added business cover. I do, but I realised that DH wasn't included on one of the policies 😱 I I always go through a comparison website and he's definitely on there and usually double check the policy when I pay. I can't understand how I missed it. If he'd been pulled over/had an accident then he would definitely would have been uninsured! Phew!

How is it separate? Because if you have 3rd party cover, then you're not uninsured?

I agree with this. It would be worth checking with his own insurer to see if he has third party cover for driving other cars included and, if so, what circumstances are covered. It may not cover business use.

Although, if he has accepted to points and fine, I'm not sure how you can undo that, if at all.

I'm not sure that you do accept the points at the side of the road. Don't you normally have to send a form off admitting the offence and paying the fine?

How is it separate? Because if you have 3rd party cover, then you're not uninsured?

3rd party Insurance covers the other person(s), not the policyholder/named driver.

But legally the policy holder/named driver doesn't have to be insured for their own losses. That's why it's possible to buy third party cover as opposed to comprehensive.

But legally the policy holder/named driver doesn't have to be insured for their own losses. That's why it's possible to buy third party cover as opposed to comprehensive.

I don't get your point. You can't drive a car for business purposes on third party insurance. But we are blurring the lines between legal and insurance T&Cs now.

Legally he did not have business cover.

Insurance wise, 3rd part wold be covered.

They are 2 separate things altogether.

You can't just run a bus or taxi company on 3rd part and tell the police it's fine because you will cover your own loses, same principal stands that legally you must have the correct cover for the purpose of your journey.

Maybe read the links that I and others have posted?

You have linked to a forum

It's ok, my understanding of insurance is just fine. You absolutely can get done for not having business cover when driving for business purposes. As in this very case.

3rd party Insurance covers the other person(s), not the policyholder/named driver

Third party insurance covers the driver for losses by a third party.

This is basic cover required by law. If you have it, you are not uninsured.

You can't drive a car for business purposes on third party insurance

there is no law against it. As long as the insurance company providing the cover allows use for business.

Third party only cover for large fleets of company vehicles isn't that uncommon. I have written off a 40K company car that was only covered third party. The police attended, checked my documents and were happy with them.

This is basic cover required by law. If you have it, you are not uninsured.

Well, the guy got done for not being insured because he didn't have the correct cover, so...

I am not "ignorant" about insurance. But the OP's DH must have been doing something to attract attention. And it is very odd that the police went into the minutiae of the purpose of his journey and looked at his insurance documents. As I said, I don't carry mine with me, and even if you did, they might be out of date because you'd recently made changes by phone - and even if they were accurate a police officer can't make an assessment of whether your insurance covered you for the exact journey you were making. They don't know where you are based, or what the meeting was about, or anything else. They can tell if you have insurance, but not whether the insurance company would actually cough up in the event of a claim.