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

Our town currently has a big clamp down on driving without business insurance. In particular they are stopping all takeaway drivers in the evenings. It wouldn't surprise me if they are also doing random checks in the daytime too.

There are over 1 million drivers without insurance in the uk, it seems to be a big problem

They should be concentrating on those with no insurance not the person that may make the odd trip to a different office one day but then I suppose they are an easy target.

Tiggles I can well imagine that many many takeaway drivers don't have adequate cover.

To the poster who asked about her DS working two part-time jobs. I wouldn't think he needs business insurance as he's not travelling during a shift.
But might be worth double checking with insurance company.

RedRiver, the whole point of this thread is that the person who makes the odd trip to a different office has no 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." Only AFTER he's been stopped, there will more than likely have been a DIFFERENT reason why he was stopped.

As several pps have now said and me the ANPR (I couldn't think of this last night) won't have flagged the lack of insurance for business use, it only checks if min ins cover in place.

Apparently in theory they can stop anyone but in practice, especially with ltd resources they're going to target those with something "off"

I've never been stopped for no reason, I don't know anyone who has and bro says he's not known this to happen, even when there's a "clamp down" on certain issues, that it's because there's a suspicion raised that driver is more likely to fall under whatever issue is being "clamped down" on or clear breach of law occurring. It's not worth the time spent on paperwork to stop without reason.

"They should be concentrating on those with no insurance not the person that may make the odd trip to a different office one day" why? They're both without insurance both as guilty under the law and both leaving victims of any accidents they cause disadvantaged.

It's also rare that they don't seize the vehicle when it's a lack of insurance, that's the other thing makes me think another offence more likely.

Op hasn't been back I wonder if she's questioned dh and its come out he did lie and they're too embarrassed to say so here?

Business use covers more than one address, normal social domestic insurance will cover commute to a usual place of work

Not necessarily. Some policies only cover commuting to a normal place of work as an extra, not as standard. We have comparison sites to blame for a lot of this. Insurers want to appear at the top of the list, so the cheap price you see is for a very basic policy with a lot of exclusions and a high excess.

And those of you thinking you can never get caught. Remember that between ANPR cameras and your mobile phone, there is evidence of your whereabouts and normal routine available pretty much constantly. I witnessed an accident where one party had told a lot of lies to his insurer, presumably to get cheaper cover, and the insurers found out that he did not live or work where he said he did.

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

We were watching one of those 'Police Camera Action' type programmes the other day. The police saw a car drive past and commented 'that car is insured to be driven by a woman and a middle aged man, yet a teenager is driving it' and pulled them over. Dad was giving his teen son driving lessons and the young man was hit with a fine and six points, for driving without insurance.

Assume that they know, or can easily find out everything.

Reply from my insurance co.

"If you are travelling straight from your home to the place of training and not going to your place of work firstly then you would not have to update to business use as you are still only travelling to the one place of work in a single day.
If you were to extend your hours and split your days of work between two different sites, I.e. 2 days at one place of work and 2 days at another. Again you would not need to upgrade to business use as you are still only travelling to the one place of work in a single day.
The only time you will need business use on your policy is if you Intended or your work meant that you had to go to more than one place of work in the same day.
I hope that this helps to answer your question, If there is anything else then please just ask.
Thank you,

Aviva Insurance Limited"

If a driver has SDPC + Business on their insurance and can drive someone else's car and be covered third party only does this mean they aren't covered if they use the other person's car for business, as per the OPs husband? Has he only been charged because he was a named driver on her policy? Would he not have been charged if he had been driving on his own policy and covered for third party only?

I think my head is beginning to melt:)

If you are travelling straight from your home to the place of training and not going to your place of work firstly then you would not have to update to business use as you are still only travelling to the one place of work in a single day.

I've just checked the certificate for one of my cars that is insured for commuting but not business and it states that the policyholder and spouse are covered for travelling to and from a permanent place of work, not a single place of work like some policies do. That would suggest that, with this specific policy, travelling to attend a course, for example, at another location would not be covered.

minesausage - Type of Cover, ie fully comprehensive or third party, etc, is unrelated to Class of Use, ie SDPC or business, etc. Both type of cover and class of use need to be selected when choosing insurance. I think.

I thought the main aim was to distinguish between people who use their car just to get to work, and people who use their car for work ? Mainly because the potential liability if someone is using their car for work can been much higher than if they just commute.

Or to put it another way, if you do have a knock on a SDP+C policy, whatever you do, don't call the insurer up to harangue them about taking a while with the excuse that "I need the car for work". Because then you'll suddenly discover you were uninsured. Which I have seen happen.

Business insurance is usually "not for reward or hire" which means it covers you to get between places ie visiting a client's office for a meeting, or a Doctor doing house visits.

Using a car "for" work ie doing deliveries would need a different level of insurace.

I may be imagining it, but I am sure some policies have something about "on your employers business" ? Presumably covering the situations where you might have to go to a different office at your employers direction ?

Once again, putting it another way (and a subject much closer to my knowledge) - a lot of large organisations business continuity/disaster recover plans involve moving staff to a different location. It seems a little overly complicated if 500 people suddenly have to notify their insurer before they can move to an alternative arrangement.

Also some offsite events can involve giving lifts to colleagues just for logistical/parking reasons (never environmental in my experience ) . Nothing changes hands. Would that be covered ?

Some policies define commuting as driving to and from a permanent place of work, and some as a single place of work (so allows you travel to different places of work but only one place of work per day) - you'd need to check your policy wording and clarify as necessary.

If you're giving lifts to colleagues on behalf of your employer's business then you'd need business cover?

I used to have a car insurance that said 'on your employers business' nowadays mine just says single place of work or something like that but as someone said upthread as most people now use comparison sites the cheaper car insurances just have the bare bones and you have to make sure you add all the correct things on - then see the price go up...

We sometimes have offsite events and meetings at work which a lot of people attend, I mentioned to colleagues once about business insurance for this and I just got an eye roll so obviously not many people bother and work have never said about making sure your car is properly insured for meetings offsite.

There's a world of difference between commuting - which implies the work gets done after the journey, and business use where the work is the journey ?

If work “is” the journey I don’t think that is business use. You’d need commercial insurance - if you were a taxi driver or delivery driver, etc, even if using your own car. A salesperson using their car to travel between various places needs business insurance but there are different levels of that.

My policy said a permanent place of work. Which I thought would cover both offices, because both offices are permanent places of work. Its not like I'm driving round peoples houses, etc. But insurance company said no, it meant a single place.....but it never actually said that! I argued it but had to pay £50 which inc an admin fee to upgrade.

Also some offsite events can involve giving lifts to colleagues just for logistical/parking reasons (never environmental in my experience) . Nothing changes hands. Would that be covered ?

I'd say it depends where the colleague are picked up. If you collect them enroute to the site from your home that's SDP.

If you collect them from an office that's business.

There's a world of difference between business and the higher insurance required for delivery & taxi driving.

It is all very unclear with different wording on different policies, there are lots of threads on MSE about this, I suppose if in doubt, get it if you go to different offices at all.

Jeez, There are levels of cover -

3rd Party, 3rd party fire and theft, Fully comprehensive.

and then there are covers for specific useages -
Social, domestic and pleasure, SDP & commuting, SDPC & business use.

if you use the vehicle for something whihc you have not covered for then yes you are driving without insurance. If you have 3rd party only cover and someone steals your vehicle you will not be charged for not being insured, but you will not be covered for that claim.

driving without valid insurance

There used to be "RTA only" too - can't recall what it didn't cover, but it was the cheapest.