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

Something doesn't add up here. How did the police find out that he doesn't have business use? A check of the vehicle registration number would only show whether the vehicle has the minimum legal requirement of third party insurance.

I dont have time to read the whole thread but want to give this advice

Worst thing ever for insurance is to have a policy cancelled AGAINST you. It stays with you forever. Yes the insurance company might decide its not a risk they want to entertain and cancel

This is what id do
Go on comparison sites like go compare
Enter in ALL the details of conviction etc and get prices.

Pick one and buy - it gives you more options over pricing as not all insurance companies view the risk the same

Then - Go to existing insurer and YOU cancel. Dont give a reason just cancel. You then have correct cover with correct conviction with an insurance company that WILL take the risk.
Worst thing is you call existing insurer and they said no sorry so we are going to cancel and you are fucked so just take it out of their hands.
Dont delay and DONT use that car until youve sorted it

OP is your husband insured to drive for business purposes in his own car? If so he may well be covered to drive yours too

He is a named driver on the OP policy. That is what counts.

Something doesn't add up here. How did the police find out that he doesn't have business use? A check of the vehicle registration number would only show whether the vehicle has the minimum legal requirement of third party insurance.

He will have been asked to produce his documents - at which point the person on the desk would have noticed that he wasn't covered for business use.

If he'd told the officer that stopped him he was "just going for a drive to listen to some podcasts" (which is something I do sometimes, in case anyone says no one ever does that) then he would have been covered. And not lying to the police either.

All of which said, you can't take the desk persons judgement too seriously. I had a friend that was stopped, told to produce their licence, and was summonsed for not having a valid licence because it was Polish. The magistrates were not impressed (neither was my friend having to lose a days pay).

@Laminate that isn't the impression she gives in the OP, that was why I was asking. I'm aware the police can issue a producer but they normally need to have a reason for doing so and as the number plate wouldn't have flagged as uninsured there must be more to it.

It all sounds a bit off and I wonder whether the DH is being economical with the truth.

@Laminate that isn't the impression she gives in the OP, that was why I was asking. I'm aware the police can issue a producer but they normally need to have a reason for doing so and as the number plate wouldn't have flagged as uninsured there must be more to it.

Which is why I said to look at the producer and see what it says.

That said, many years ago (2001), a colleague told me that his 18 year old son had been stopped by the police driving home from college. The policeman approached him and said "Do you know what you did wrong for me to stop you ?".

lad replied "No", and the policeman said: "Nothing, absolutely nothing. Carry on son." and got back in the car.

The only thing we could think of was it was a mis-executed initiative to praise careful driving ?

I was once stopped in Manchester for driving a car registered in London. It was late Sunday evening and I was quite off the main roads. The office specifically told me that was the reason, and asked me to verify the V5 details in case the car had been stolen. (My 4 year old son was in the back and got very excited that we had been stopped. So excited it was all he could tell Nana and Granddad about when we reached theirs )

The police can randomly stop anyone though can't they and then they just go through everything and also check the car, things like tyres and stuff and also if you are wearing your glasses if you need to.

Just a thought ...

If the police allowed the OPs DH to proceed in the car, they cannot have had reason to suspect it wasn't insured at the time. As soon as they have a doubt over the insurance of the car and driver the car is seized and you'll have to produce proof of insurance (plus storage fees) to release it. Which is one reason for checking ownvehicle.askmid.com/ - and if it shows your car as not insured then do not drive it. Get it corrected. (No use waving a paper policy in the policemans face).

I know a former boss who was an ex copper used to play snooker with his mates in the depths of West Mercia. Red car ... go for a black, etc. (As he said anything to avoid being in town on a Friday night).

@freshstartnewme that's not right - he could be insured to drive another car for business purposes under his own insurance.

Something doesn't add up here. How did the police find out that he doesn't have business use?

I have read that police can get access to the full policy details via MIB.

I have also been pulled over at the roadside on a random police check - suspect he was looking for drink drivers as he leaned in to ask some random questions and then waved me on.

that's not right - he could be insured to drive another car for business purposes under his own insurance.

He could be, but he is a named driver on this particular car and that is what counts.

Police may well have had a crack down drive on this exact issue. So pull everyone over, ask where they're going/been, if anyone mentions work they check insurance details.

Ive been pulled over in a random check before where there was no suspicion of any wrong doing or offence to check my caravan was correctly hitched and that I had the right licence to tow. I know of someone else who had exactly the same and got a ticket for an incorrectly hitched caravan.....but their caravan was correctly hitched and how the police made him rehitch it was dangerous. There was a massive argument which got the caravan manufacturer and the caravan club involved and the police had to back down and admit they were wrong.

I am quite confused by this!!

My insurance schedule says I'm covered for SDP and commuting. It does not say where I work or what hours/days I work. If I were driving to a meeting at a different location and said to police that I'm driving to work, how would they know that I'm not going to my usual location??

If I had an accident while on my way to that meeting, how would my insurance company know that I wasn't going to my usual work location, given that they've never asked me where I work?

Obviously if you're car is full of work equipment then it's different but for most people, it's just commuting but sometimes to a different place from normal! I don't get paid mileage for any journeys by the way.

Please explain this slowly to me as I am now spooked that I'm not covered sometimes (and nor is DH as he does 60% work from one location and 40% from another location - same company just two bases)

Quattro SDP covers you to travel from home to / from work. It does not cover you to travel between work places, ie to clients, to sites, to meetings, between offices.

quattro

I think if you had a big accident which resulted in a possible big payoff your insurance company could try and do what they can to wriggle out of it. So they might ask for evidence of where your regular employment base is. And if the accident wasn't en route it could cause problems. Though if you were quick and said you weren't going to work that day, or had stayed at a friends house so on a different route then maybe they wouldn't twig. But in the aftermath of a big accident of youd said to the police you were on the way to work you could be scuppered.

I was told by my insurance that social domestic pleasure and commuting did not cover me going to a different office on occasion. That that counted as business use even though in my mind its commuting.

Well I've just emailed my insurers (it's all online so it's hard to ask directly) to ask about this hypothetically. I do think most don't make it very transparent - as so many posters have said, we just see it as 'commuting' if it's to a different office from usual because we see it as 'going to work'

This really should be clarified in law I think, and there should be an insurance industry standard. I absolutely agree that ignorance is no defence, but its hard to not be ignorant sometimes

I think it's normally worded that you are covered for commuting to a "single place of work".

Ok, so DS's massive insurance premium covers him for SDP amd travel to and from work. Now he ha a 'student' but has two part time jobs. One at a supermarket - gets in car from hom drives to Supermarket. The other job is as a sports coach with one company but in different venues so today he is coaching in x venue, sat in y venue, sun in w venue and, very occasionally on a Tuesday, in s venue. He goes from home and returns back to home and has no equipment. I assumed this was 'travel to work' but should it be business?

Really confused by this now.

Flyingarcher, my insurance company classed that as needing business insurance. I never travel from one business place to another. Only from home to office a or from home to to office b.

My car insurance says single place of work - very clear

DH's car insurance says 'Use by the policyholder or the policy holders spouse/partner in person in connection with his or her business' - not clear at all but sounds to me that we can go anywhere connected to our employer so not a single office of work.

Late to this thread, but curious how it would affect people who (as I did last job) worked from home - with that being your stated "place of work" ? For me any journey - whether to one of our 5 offices, or the station or airport was a business trip.

I work from home and every time I go out in relation to my work is classed as business use. Even if it's going into my head office.

DGR Yes, in that situation you would need business cover on your car insurance.

I'd just like to point out that insurers are increasingly voiding policies and repudiating claims because of this type of thing. They're also keen to get an Article 75 declaration to remove their liability for third party claims. Or, they might pay out having got an Assignment and Recovery form signed by the third party.
What this means is that the person who caused the accident and had the claim repudiated/policy voided is then personally liable for the damage to the other vehicle(s). Personal Injury is covered by the MIB.

So, please be careful and make sure you have adequate insurance, and that anybody who may drive your car has adequate cover as well.