Car insurance

[The Todal]

Apologies to anyone who thinks this is off topic. I think it's a
law-related topic.

I noticed that my latest car insurance premium is hundreds of pounds
higher than for the previous year, though I have no convictions and the
maximum no claims bonus.

I believe that motor insurers are not allowed to offer lower rates to
new customers than they would offer to existing customers - so that
means if they want to increase their price they must do so for everyone.

I have found it unacceptable to renew with the existing insurer for the
last 4 years - I have used the usual price comparison websites (eg the
one with the irritating meerkats) and have always found lower premiums
available, so have switched to that insurer but the following year the
price always goes up by a large amount. But then other insurers who
previously quoted high premiums are quoting much lower premiums than
before. Thus, I have a different insurer each year and I don't see any
disadvantage in doing so.

Is this some sort of scam that ought to be investigated by the
Competition and Markets Authority? An agreement between insurers to take
it in turns to quote low and to quote high, relying on customer inertia
to renew rather than get new quotes every year? Presumably more people
pay the higher premium than switch to a different insurer?

As a matter of interest has anyone here found it possible to stay with
the same motor insurer for 5 years or more and did that mean knowingly
ignoring cheaper quotes?

[Andy Burns]

The Todal wrote:

> I believe that motor insurers are not allowed to offer lower rates to
> new customers than they would offer to existing customers

I believe *any* difference when you ask for a quote, such as a different
start date, or different estimated annual mileage, makes you a "new"
customer rather than a renewal for an existing customer?

[pensive hamster]

There are some Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules about this,
which I believe came into effect in Jan 2022. How much legal force
they have, I'm not sure.

-----------------
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/01/direct-line-to-pay-30m-to-overcharged-car-and-home-insurance-customers
1 Sep 2023
'Direct Line to pay £30m to overcharged car and home insurance
customers

'Company breached rules that state existing policyholders should not
be charged more than new ones'
-----------------

Which? magazine has been on the case as well:

https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/are-you-still-paying-the-loyalty-penalty-for-insurance-a7InK7O2ioKh
Updated: 31 Aug 2022
'Are you still paying the 'loyalty penalty' for insurance?'

[Andy Burns]

pensive hamster wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that motor insurers are not allowed to offer lower rates to
>>> new customers than they would offer to existing customers
>>
>> I believe *any* difference when you ask for a quote, such as a different
>> start date, or different estimated annual mileage, makes you a "new"
>> customer rather than a renewal for an existing customer?
>
> There are some Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules about this,
> which I believe came into effect in Jan 2022. How much legal force
> they have, I'm not sure.

I queried how my provider could quote me a lower price online as a new
policy than their renewal offer after those new rules had come into
force, and that's what they told me ..

[notya...@gmail.com]

Not five years recently.

I was with Provincial for 19 years, but after AXA took them over rate hikes with no change of risk started happening so I switched. Some insurers don't like it if you have no fault bumps. More recently it has mostly been Aviva and General Accident (now part of Aviva) and premiums have been fairly stable until this year and if I did a comparison check either there was nothing lower or just a few percent less for inferior cover, but as widely reported they were all hiked this year so I did get a big rise, but comparison sites came up with nothing worth moving for.

[Jeff Layman]

I'm one of those who can't be bothered to shop around. However, as I
have buildings and contents with the same insurer as the car, I am
/told/ there is a discount (I am rather stuck with buildings insurance
as my house was underpinned due to subsidence almost 30 years ago, and
most insurers won't even quote). FWIW, here are the fully comp figures
for the same car (Honda Jazz, new in 2015) at the same address for 9
years, and with no claims made (period starts every December):
2015 217.20
2016 270.52
2017 314.19
2018 308.85
2019 304.46
2020 321.38
2021 322.77
2022 354.00
2023 358.22

Looks like I paid through the nose for the first two renewals, but since
then it doesn't look bad (14% increase from 2017 to 2023). According to
<https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator>,
£314 in 2017 should be £400 in November 2023. However, £217 in 2015
should be £286 in November 2023. But has car policy inflation been the
same as general inflation?

--

Jeff

[GB]

On 04/01/2024 20:12, Jeff Layman wrote:

> Looks like I paid through the nose for the first two renewals, but since
> then it doesn't look bad (14% increase from 2017 to 2023). According to
> <https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator>, £314 in 2017 should be £400 in November 2023. However, £217 in 2015 should be £286 in November 2023. But has car policy inflation been the same as general inflation?
>

Insurance tends to be cyclical. Premiums go down, so insurers leave the
market. Fewer insurers means less competition, so premiums go up. That
attracts new insurers to the market, and premiums go down ...

Given the cyclicity, it would be a complete fluke if motor insurance
premium inflation turned out to be the same as general price inflation
over a particular period.

[Simon Parker]

On 04/01/2024 17:23, The Todal wrote:

> Apologies to anyone who thinks this is off topic. I think it's a
> law-related topic.

FWIW, I agree. Although the situation you mention is covered by a Code
of Practice issued by the FCA, rather than by legislation issued by
Parliament - more on this later...

> I noticed that my latest car insurance premium is hundreds of pounds
> higher than for the previous year, though I have no convictions and the
> maximum no claims bonus.

Same. I have multi-car policy with multiple named drivers plus
additional policies for motorbikes and a motorhome which are cheaper on
their own policies . I have been driving since my late teens, hold
additional classes for motorbikes and category C (class 2 HGV) plus I
have passed the IAM "Advanced Driver" course (I did mine with a retired
police driver). I have full NCD, no convictions, and no crashes, losses
or claims but the multi-car policy went up by just under 50% at renewal
time in Q4 2023. When I received the renewal quotation, I spoke to a
friend who owns an insurance broker firm, (specifically for commercial
insurance but he knows the non-commercial industry well), and he told me
straight away that the renewal quote was pretty good and that he
recommended that I accept it. He then went on to explain that vehicle
insurance has increased by close to 60% over the last 12 months going up
close to 20% in the last quarter alone.

Unfortunately, he said this isn't a blip and quarter on quarter
increases in insurance are getting bigger. In short, not only are price
rises here to stay, but they're going to get larger as time goes on.

The single biggest factor in this is the proliferation of Electric
Vehicles (EVs). EVs tend to be more expensive to purchase than ICE
equivalents so the cost of replacement in total loss situations is higher.

Additionally, all cars (EVs and ICE) tend to have more tech in them now
and all that tech costs more to repair in the event of a collision.

(Anecdote#1: one of my nephews drives a Mercedes A-class that is just
under 12 months old. A couple of months after he bought it, he was
involved in a minor shunt in the car-park at work. (A colleague
reversing out of a parking space didn't see he waiting to turn into it
and nudged into his bumper at around 5mph.) In "the good old days", he
would have had a look at the front of his car, ascertained that there
was no damage and that would be the end of that. (No need to exchange
details as it was a colleague, was captured on the work CCTV system, and
he could get her details later if required.) Unfortunately, the
Mercedes' Engine Management System (EMS) detected "something" and a
light on the dash illuminated. He contacted the Mercedes dealer from
whom he had purchased the vehicle and they advised him that he'd need to
book the car in for a post-collision inspection as the EMS had detected
an issue. Long story short, the auto-aim of the headlights had decided
the shunt had meant it needed recalibrating - which required the car
being with Mercedes for 2 days (during which my nephew was given a
courtesy car - which Mercedes can charge to the "at fault" driver's
insurance) because recalibrating it requires first removing the front
bumper and then refitting it once it has been recalibrated. The bill,
excluding the hire car element, was north of £300 - for a 5mph shunt in
a car park. Mercedes said he was unfortunate and that the car must have
been hit at just the right angle to shake the headlight enough to
trigger the EMS but I reckon the final bill to the "at fault" driver's
insurance was probably around the £500 mark whereas a few years ago, the
"cost" of this collision would have been zero.)

(Anecdote#2: The driver's side headlight on my wife's car (also German)
required replacing. (It is a sealed unit and the seal failed allowing
water to accumulate inside it. It has a control unit that plugs into
the rear of the unit at the bottom, (something of a design flaw, IMO),
to control the LED position lights, side lights and LED halo headlights
which was damaged by the water and also required replacing. The total
cost for replacing the headlight and control unit was scarily close to
£2,000, which included the headlight unit (£1,200), the control unit
(£230), labour (£300) and a charge (£150) for coding the new headlight
and control board to the EMS. (There are something like 27 variations
of headlight combinations for this particular model. The EMS needs to
know the model and serial number for the headlight unit and each control
board or it displays a fault, hence the coding charge.) It did not
include any of the lamps / lighting modules as that would have added
approximately another £1,000 to the cost! Thankfully, the unit has a
"lifetime warranty" on it so it was replaced under warranty, but I had
to sign the bill so know how much it would have cost had I been paying
for it. (Side note: a "lifetime" is a certain mileage, a number of years
or as soon as the vehicle is sold by the original buyer - not the
lifetime of the vehicle.)

(Apologies that both anecdotes involve headlights but I do not have any
non-headlight related anecdotes. But, on the subject of expensive
headlights in modern EVs, the new BMW i7 has Swarovski crystals embedded
in the headlight. I bet they're really, really cheap to replace(!) in
the event of a collision.)

Similarly, the labour costs for repairing EVs is more expensive than
non-EVs as there are fewer specialists capable of working on these
vehicles so they can charge more.

Additionally, as there is a shortage of EV repair specialists, the
repairs generally take longer, so the hire car costs are higher too.

Bottom line: costs are up, up, up and the insurers pass these on by
increasing the premiums.

> I believe that motor insurers are not allowed to offer lower rates to
> new customers than they would offer to existing customers - so that
> means if they want to increase their price they must do so for everyone.

Correct. The magic phrase to plug into Google (or another search engine
of your choosing) is GIPP (General Insurance Pricing Practices).

This is a system created and monitored by the FCA following consultation
with relevant stakeholders. Insurers have to make annual returns to the
FCA to prove they are complying.

It essentially says that renewal quote proffered to existing customers
must be the same as the "Equivalent New Business Price" (ENBP), i.e. the
price proffered to a new customer in precisely the same circumstances as
the existing policyholder.

However, there are a number of caveats. For example, it is only for
"consumer" policies. So if you have 'business use' on *any* vehicle on
the policy, GIPP doesn't apply. Ditto for landlords and property
insurance as they're not classed as "consumer" policies.

Similarly, the various factors that feed into the price of a renewal are
complicated and includes, for example, the number of days until the
current policy expires. Getting a quote for precisely the same cover a
few days apart can yield different prices. (Top Tip: aim to get a quote
for renewal 20-26 days before the current policy expires.)

The FCA say that renewal quotes should be sent out "in good time",
without specifying a precise period. Most take this to mean a month or
so before the current policy expires.

You can read the initial rules here
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps21-5.pdf, the amendments
here https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps21-11.pdf and the Q&A
on the rules here
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps21-5-questions-answers.pdf

> I have found it unacceptable to renew with the existing insurer for the
> last 4 years - I have used the usual price comparison websites (eg the
> one with the irritating meerkats) and have always found lower premiums
> available, so have switched to that insurer but the following year the
> price always goes up by a large amount. But then other insurers who
> previously quoted high premiums are quoting much lower premiums than
> before. Thus, I have a different insurer each year and I don't see any
> disadvantage in doing so.

There is no disadvantage in switching insurer each year (other than the
hours lost compiling and comparing all the quotes) and it is always
worth getting quotes rather than auto-renewing to ensure the renewal
price is competitive.

> Is this some sort of scam that ought to be investigated by the
> Competition and Markets Authority? An agreement between insurers to take
> it in turns to quote low and to quote high, relying on customer inertia
> to renew rather than get new quotes every year? Presumably more people
> pay the higher premium than switch to a different insurer?

The FCA oversee GIPP rather than the CMA. In the first instance, I
would recommend contacting the FCA rather than the CMA.

When you get your renewal quote, (typically a month before the policy
expires), I recommend getting prices from the three main comparison
sites, (The meerkat one, MSE/MoneySupermarket and Confused), then the
smaller comparison sites (GoCompare and Quotezone) then check DirectLine
as they're not on any comparison sites. This will give you the cheapest
quote out there.

Armed with that, call your current insurer, (you'll now likely be in the
sweet spot of 20-26 days before renewal), and they may be able to give a
price that is close to, matches or beats the best renewal quote obtained
in the previous step. If not, go with the best renewal quote obtained.

(Best is not always cheapest. Some policies include things like DLP and
like-for-like car hire at no charge whereas others charge extra for
this. Ensure you are comparing like with like.)

> As a matter of interest has anyone here found it possible to stay with
> the same motor insurer for 5 years or more and did that mean knowingly
> ignoring cheaper quotes?

I'm in the third year on the multi-car with the same insurer (LV=).
With insurance for my motorbikes and motorhome I'm fishing in much
smaller ponds but have been with Bennetts (bikes) and Adrian Flux
(motorhome) for as long as I can remember.

Regards

S.P.

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 18:23:47 +0000, Andy Burns wrote...

I had a similar experience after the new rules came into effect. They
told me that my existing policy was no longer available to new
customers, and the online policy was different. I compared them
carefully and could see no difference apart from the premium.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Peter Johnson]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 17:23:52 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:

>Apologies to anyone who thinks this is off topic. I think it's a
>law-related topic.
>
>I noticed that my latest car insurance premium is hundreds of pounds
>higher than for the previous year, though I have no convictions and the
>maximum no claims bonus.
>

I was with Tesco for several years. They treated me well when I needed
to make a claim and the increases each year weren't enough to put the
effort into getting a lower price.
But this year they wanted to increase last year's £800 to £1,600+.
When I phoned, the answering machine said that premiums were
increasing because there were more claims and repairs were more
expensive. The person I spoke to said that I could probably reduce the
price if I added another driver to the policy, even it they didn't
drive the car and weren't a member of the same household. I couldn't
see that making £800 difference so I used a comparison website and
gave my business to Marks & Spencer (for about £800) because I wanted
a name that I recognised, even though I'm actually with a broker who's
fronting for M&S.
When my contents/buildings policy, also with Tesco, came up for
renewal a month later that price had also about doubled. I didn't
waste any time phoning, used the price comparison site to find a new
policy for slightly less than I paid last year.

[Colin Bignell]

On 04/01/2024 17:23, The Todal wrote:

....

> As a matter of interest has anyone here found it possible to stay with
> the same motor insurer for 5 years or more

Yes, but not recently. About four years ago my broker recommended a
change and another change a couple of years after that.

> and did that mean knowingly
> ignoring cheaper quotes?

My broker assures me that they look for the best prices at every renewal.

--
Colin Bignell

[Sam Plusnet]

Does your broker examine the fine details of what each insurance
actually covers and (more importantly) what it limits or leaves out?

That's something those comparison websites seem to ignore.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

Leaving your broker on one side, isn't M&S in turn acting as a 'front'
for someone else? <checks google>

"M&S Bank's car insurance policies are arranged and administered by BISL
Ltd using a panel of more than 10 insurers including Ageas, Allianz,
Aviva, Covea, LV=, Sabre, Zenith, and Zurich. The specific insurer
underwriting your policy will be displayed on your policy documents."

Life gets more complicated every year.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Colin Bignell]

On 06/01/2024 21:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 05-Jan-24 21:13, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 04/01/2024 17:23, The Todal wrote:
>> ....
>>> As a matter of interest has anyone here found it possible to stay
>>> with the same motor insurer for 5 years or more
>>
>> Yes, but not recently. About four years ago my broker recommended a
>> change and another change a couple of years after that.
>>
>>> and did that mean knowingly ignoring cheaper quotes?
>>
>> My broker assures me that they look for the best prices at every renewal.
>>
> Does your broker examine the fine details of what each insurance
> actually covers and (more importantly) what it limits or leaves out?

They certainly claim to and, when they suggest a change, the details
given in the renewal letter suggests that they do.

> That's something those comparison websites seem to ignore.

I suspect they use similar software, but with the addition of an
experienced human to review results. My broker at the firm has been
dealing with my car insurance for many years. When I still ran a
business, the same firm, but a different broker, used to deal with the
insurances for my business.

--
Colin Bignell

[Roland Perry]

In message <kvo7t8...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:23:52 on Thu, 4 Jan
2024, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:

>As a matter of interest has anyone here found it possible to stay with
>the same motor insurer for 5 years or more and did that mean knowingly
>ignoring cheaper quotes?

In the past I've stayed with one or other same-insurer for many years.
To some extent because the premium was much the same or lower, I have
better things to do with my time. The irritating red telephone (which I
don't think features on price comparison sites) for example.

Towards the end of last year my renewal premium [with someone else] went
up a massive amount (like 30+% I think) so SWMBO did some shopping
around and declared it was still competitive. So I stayed. To complicate
things, soon after I changed vehicles to a newer example of broadly the
same, and I don't recall the new premium changing enough to make it
worth considering cancelling mid-year and re-quoting.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <kvom67...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4 Jan
2024, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

>The magic phrase to plug into Google (or another search engine of your
>choosing) is GIPP (General Insurance Pricing Practices).
>
>This is a system created and monitored by the FCA following
>consultation with relevant stakeholders. Insurers have to make annual
>returns to the FCA to prove they are complying.
>
>It essentially says that renewal quote proffered to existing customers
>must be the same as the "Equivalent New Business Price" (ENBP), i.e.
>the price proffered to a new customer in precisely the same
>circumstances as the existing policyholder.
>
>However, there are a number of caveats. For example, it is only for
>"consumer" policies. So if you have 'business use' on *any* vehicle on
>the policy, GIPP doesn't apply.

That's interesting, I think I might still have "business use" on my car
because although I finally retired from the job just before Xmas the
employer insisted I had it, just in case when triggering their "you must
be prepared to work anywhere at any time, if we have a crisis" clause in
the employment contract it would involve me driving during work hours
from one of their locations to another (rather than walking or getting
the largely non-existent bus).

They also separately recently introduced a new "Health and Safety"
element to the organisation's transport policy that if I were to break
down while undergoing a shuttle like that, I MUST NOT attempt to fix it
myself at the roadside, but sit there awaiting a professional repair
service such as AA/RAC.

It did vaguely cross my mind that perhaps I should have put the cost of
obtaining the latter on my expenses, and now maybe even have put this
extra cost of basic insurance on as well. ie Not just the extra cost of
the 'business use' itself, but the cost of the policy not being covered
by GIPP.

>Ditto for landlords and property insurance as they're not classed as
>"consumer" policies.

--
Roland Perry

[Andy Burns]

Simon Parker wrote:

> The Todal wrote:

>

>> I believe that motor insurers are not allowed to offer lower rates to

>> new customers than they would offer to existing customers

>

> Correct.  The magic phrase to plug into Google (or another search engine

> of your choosing) is GIPP (General Insurance Pricing Practices). [...]

> if you have 'business use' on *any* vehicle on

> the policy, GIPP doesn't apply.

ok, that applies in the case I mentioned before.

> I'm in the third year on the multi-car with the same insurer (LV=).

I've been with them since 2018, not due for renewal for a couple of

months so don't have a renewal offer yet, but having checked the

meerkats, looks like LV= might be a long way down the list and Halifax

as the likely replacement £50 higher than the current £420 premium.

[Fredxx]

But that would hardly be an expense exclusively for work, unless you
kept two policies?

The alternative would be paying a call-out fee that some services offer
that you could then claim back. I still think there could be a benefit
in kind?

[Simon Parker]

Should that happen again, I'd recommend informing the insurer that you
wish to make a formal complaint as they seem to be flouting GIPP so can
they please transfer the call to the complaints handling team.

The insurer has to report to the FCA that you've complained and the FCA
can (and do!) investigate if they feel it necessary.

Regards

S.P.

[Fredxx]

I don't see how? I have a business bank account with rates I can now
longer get. Why should insurance be treated differently. I'm sure they
will say the the new policy cover is different, perhaps with a few more
exclusion clauses.

> The insurer has to report to the FCA that you've complained and the FCA
> can (and do!) investigate if they feel it necessary.

Where there's a will, there is always going to be a way.

Many rules are introduced by government that advantage no one apart from
the politicians themselves.

[Simon Parker]

On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <kvom67...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4 Jan
> 2024, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> The magic phrase to plug into Google (or another search engine of your
>> choosing) is GIPP (General Insurance Pricing Practices).
>>
>> This is a system created and monitored by the FCA following
>> consultation with relevant stakeholders.  Insurers have to make annual
>> returns to the FCA to prove they are complying.
>>
>> It essentially says that renewal quote proffered to existing customers
>> must be the same as the "Equivalent New Business Price" (ENBP), i.e.
>> the price proffered to a new customer in precisely the same
>> circumstances as the existing policyholder.
>>
>> However, there are a number of caveats.  For example, it is only for
>> "consumer" policies.  So if you have 'business use' on *any* vehicle
>> on the policy, GIPP doesn't apply.
>
> That's interesting, I think I might still have "business use" on my car
> because although I finally retired from the job just before Xmas the
> employer insisted I had it, just in case when triggering their "you must
> be prepared to work anywhere at any time, if we have a crisis" clause in
> the employment contract it would involve me driving during work hours
> from one of their locations to another (rather than walking or getting
> the largely non-existent bus).

I recommend checking the class of insurance cover you have.

Social, Domestic and Pleasure *DOES NOT* cover travel to and from work,
or use for any work-related purposes.

Social, Domestic, Pleasure *and Commuting* typically covers travelling
from/to home to/from a single permanent place of employment but not any
other work-related use.

If you work at multiple locations, even if for the same company, you
likely need business use. Similarly, if you ever travel between one
place of employment and another, that too likely requires business use.
Or if you use the car to visit clients... or suppliers... etc.

I would suggest that most people that are self-employed, or work for
more than one employer and / or at more than one location need business
use which instantly puts them outside GIPP as it is no longer a
"consumer" policy.

> They also separately recently introduced a new "Health and Safety"
> element to the organisation's transport policy that if I were to break
> down while undergoing a shuttle like that, I MUST NOT attempt to fix it
> myself at the roadside, but sit there awaiting a professional repair
> service such as AA/RAC.

ISTR there was an issue with the "Duty of Care" employers owe to
employees concerning company vehicles being extended to those using
their own vehicle in lieu of a company car. (If I was forced to give
more details, I'd suggest it involved changing a wheel on the motorway
but (Ed: Warning thread convergence ahead) that might be what AI would
term a "hallucination".)

But those using their privately owned car in those circumstances have
always been at risk of the employer imposing terms on the use of such
vehicles. (e.g. I've seen clauses banning vehicles over 5 years old,
with more than 100K miles on them, no 2 seaters, no 4x4, no
convertibles, etc.)

Insisting that such vehicles are covered by a breakdown service and that
it is used in the event of a breakdown whilst on company business is
merely just an extension of such clauses. (See previous comments about
changing a wheel on the motorway.)

Although the most ridiculous H&S nonsense I've ever encountered in a
workplace included a ban on carrying hot drinks in containers that did
not have a lid, a ban on carrying a hot drink on stairs at all and an
insistence than anyone using the stairs had to have one hand on the
handrail at all times. It really was 'Elfin Safety gone mad'.)

> It did vaguely cross my mind that perhaps I should have put the cost of
> obtaining the latter on my expenses, and now maybe even have put this
> extra cost of basic insurance on as well. ie Not just the extra cost of
> the 'business use' itself, but the cost of the policy not being covered
> by GIPP.

I'll wager that you probably had the wrong breakdown cover in place.
Most breakdown companies exclude vehicles that have "any commercial use"
from their typical policies. [1] (They might not routinely enforce it,
but if they chose to, they would be quite within their rights to do so.)

In the case of the AA, you would have needed a "Fleet Policy" even
though your fleet was comprised of just a single vehicle.

Regards

S.P.

[1] See, for example, the final paragraph on page 4 of the AA's
"Breakdown Membership Terms and Conditions Booklet (August 2023
Revision) [2]
[2]
https://www.theaa.com/~/media/the-aa/pdf/breakdown-cover/terms-and-conditions-august-2023.pdf

[Simon Parker]

Yes it would because he'd (technically) need a "Fleet Policy" which is
classed as a business expense. Please feel free to ask HMRC if you
don't believe me, but I can save you the time and trouble as I have
asked them in the past. (For the self-employed, they include "breakdown
cover on a vehicle as an allowable expense here:
https://www.gov.uk/expenses-if-youre-self-employed/travel)

> The alternative would be paying a call-out fee that some services offer
> that you could then claim back. I still think there could be a benefit
> in kind?

Respectfully, HMRC disagree with you and I accept their guidance in
response to a formal request to be more authoritative that posts in this
NG. :-)

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 07/01/2024 16:24, Fredxx wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 15:27, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 05/01/2024 00:57, Tim Jackson wrote:

>>> I had a similar experience after the new rules came into effect.  They
>>> told me that my existing policy was no longer available to new
>>> customers, and the online policy was different.  I compared them
>>> carefully and could see no difference apart from the premium.
>>
>> Should that happen again, I'd recommend informing the insurer that you
>> wish to make a formal complaint as they seem to be flouting GIPP so
>> can they please transfer the call to the complaints handling team.
>
> I don't see how? I have a business bank account with rates I can now
> longer get. Why should insurance be treated differently. I'm sure they
> will say the the new policy cover is different, perhaps with a few more
> exclusion clauses.

I don't expect you to have read all the documents in their entirety from
the three links I posted previously but as a bare minimum you need to
have read the Q&A document before posting that you "don't see how"
things detailed in those documents are handled, nor why comparisons
between insurance (which is covered by GIPP) and a bank account (which
isn't) have any relevance to the discussion.

In the instant case, I respectfully refer you to ICOBS 6B.2.40 E (1)
which states: "A firm must ensure that it does not systematically
discriminate against customers based on their tenure". [1]

Subsection 2 thereof includes "closed books where a firm is unable to
identify a close matched product" which covers the situation you are
proposing for a product no longer proffered. (Spoiler alert: They're
still covered by GIPP.)

>> The insurer has to report to the FCA that you've complained and the
>> FCA can (and do!) investigate if they feel it necessary.
>
> Where there's a will, there is always going to be a way.
>
> Many rules are introduced by government that advantage no one apart from
> the politicians themselves.

As I made clear previously, the rules in question were made and are
enforced by the FCA and is neither the government nor politicians.
Regards

S.P.

[1] https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/ICOBS/6B/2.html

[Fredxx]

I am aware that expenses can be proportionate for the self-employed.
However, unless I'm mistaken, Rowland was employed and there are a
completely different set of rules.

>> The alternative would be paying a call-out fee that some services
>> offer that you could then claim back. I still think there could be a
>> benefit in kind?
>
> Respectfully, HMRC disagree with you and I accept their guidance in
> response to a formal request to be more authoritative that posts in this
> NG. :-)

The same argument as above.

For the employed:

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim31660

I'm sure Ann Mallalieu might agree?

[Norman Wells]

Generally, it does. For example:

"Social, domestic, and pleasure (SD&P) refers to an insurance policy
that permits personal trips in your car. It includes cover for everyday
activities such as driving to the shops, visiting family, or commuting
between home and work".

https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/for-car-insurance-what-is-our-definition-of-social-domestic-and-pleasure-including-commuting

[JNugent]

I used to prefer to just claim the 45p a mile for business miles, which
would cover fuel and a proportion of insurance, road tax, servicing,
repairs and spares.

Far less messing about.

>> The alternative would be paying a call-out fee that some services
>> offer that you could then claim back. I still think there could be a
>> benefit in kind?

Why bovver?

[Roger Hayter]

Comparethemarket whatever clearly does not think that this is true of all
motor insurance policies.

https://www.comparethemarket.com/car-insurance/content/classes-of-use-and-car-insurance/

It would be as well to check the particular policy. But even if it needs
specifying commuting cover is not necessarily more expensive, otherwise LV
wouldn't be throwing it in free, for their clients.


--
Roger Hayter

[Fredxx]

If you're self-employed you can't do that. Happy to be proven wrong.

>>> The alternative would be paying a call-out fee that some services
>>> offer that you could then claim back. I still think there could be a
>>> benefit in kind?
>
> Why bovver?

Quite. The 45p per mile is meant to cover a portion of those costs.

[Andy Burns]

Fredxx wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>
>> Simon Parker wrote:
>>
>>> (For the self-employed, they include
>>> "breakdown cover on a vehicle as an allowable expense here:
>>> https://www.gov.uk/expenses-if-youre-self-employed/travel)
>>
>> I used to prefer to just claim the 45p a mile for business miles,
>> which would cover fuel and a proportion of insurance, road tax,
>> servicing, repairs and spares.

Likewise

>> Far less messing about.

Absolutely

> If you're self-employed you can't do that. Happy to be proven wrong.

You can [except blah, blah]

<https://www.gov.uk/simpler-income-tax-simplified-expenses/vehicles>

[GB]

On 08/01/2024 00:14, Fredxx wrote:

>> I used to prefer to just claim the 45p a mile for business miles,
>> which would cover fuel and a proportion of insurance, road tax,
>> servicing, repairs and spares.
>>
>> Far less messing about.
>
> If you're self-employed you can't do that. Happy to be proven wrong.

See:
https://www.gov.uk/simpler-income-tax-simplified-expenses/vehicles-

[Fredxx]

Very useful, thanks for the link.

[Vir Campestris]

On 05/01/2024 16:19, Peter Johnson wrote:
> I was with Tesco for several years. They treated me well when I needed
> to make a claim and the increases each year weren't enough to put the
> effort into getting a lower price.
> But this year they wanted to increase last year's £800 to £1,600+.
> When I phoned, the answering machine said that premiums were
> increasing because there were more claims and repairs were more
> expensive. The person I spoke to said that I could probably reduce the
> price if I added another driver to the policy, even it they didn't
> drive the car and weren't a member of the same household. I couldn't
> see that making £800 difference so I used a comparison website and
> gave my business to Marks & Spencer (for about £800) because I wanted
> a name that I recognised, even though I'm actually with a broker who's
> fronting for M&S.
> When my contents/buildings policy, also with Tesco, came up for
> renewal a month later that price had also about doubled. I didn't
> waste any time phoning, used the price comparison site to find a new
> policy for slightly less than I paid last year.

My wife and I are on our son's car insurance for that reason.

He's a lot older now than when this started, and I suspect it doesn't
make as much difference as it did.

I have a feeling that one day we'll be old enough to be making his
insurance _more_ expensive than less.

A couple of times he's borrowed my wife's car when his has been off the
road. He has to insure it himself - he uses his car for business (20k
miles per year) and we don't want to pay for that.


Andy

[Simon Parker]

On 07/01/2024 21:29, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 19:49, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:

>>> That's interesting, I think I might still have "business use" on my
>>> car because although I finally retired from the job just before Xmas
>>> the employer insisted I had it, just in case when triggering their
>>> "you must be prepared to work anywhere at any time, if we have a
>>> crisis" clause in the employment contract it would involve me driving
>>> during work hours from one of their locations to another (rather than
>>> walking or getting the largely non-existent bus).
>>
>> I recommend checking the class of insurance cover you have.
>>
>> Social, Domestic and Pleasure *DOES NOT* cover travel to and from work,
>
> Generally, it does.

Generally it doesn't.

> For example:
>
> "Social, domestic, and pleasure (SD&P) refers to an insurance policy
> that permits personal trips in your car. It includes cover for everyday
> activities such as driving to the shops, visiting family, or commuting
> between home and work".
>
> https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/for-car-insurance-what-is-our-definition-of-social-domestic-and-pleasure-including-commuting

That is "Social Domestic and Pleasure *including commuting*" as the URL
makes clear. (Highlighting mine.)

For further information see:

"Am I insured to drive my car for business use?

"You're covered to drive to one single place of work if you choose
'Social, Domestic & Pleasure + Commuting' for your type of use.

"If you have to travel to more than one place of work, or you're a
travelling or commercial sales person for example, you'll need to let us
know that your vehicle is used for business."

From:
https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/am-i-insured-to-drive-my-car-for-business-use

Which is in complete agreement with my previous post on the matter.

I have previously stated that I have a multi-vehicle multi-driver policy
with LV=. Each driver / vehicle combination has a different class of
insurance. For example, my wife has "Social, Domestic and Pleasure
Only" for the car for which I am the main driver. Please find below the
text I've just copied and pasted from the policy document which details
the use of my car for which she is insured, namely "Social, Domestic and
Pleasure Only":

"Covered for social, domestic and pleasure use, *excluding commuting to
work*." (Highlighting mine.)

Now, please tell me, with reference to the statement above (taken from
an LV= policy document) whether or not "Social, Domestic and Pleasure
Only" cover includes or excludes "commuting to work"?

I will add that, as someone that has been insured with LV= for some
time, I can state unequivocally that it contains mistakes in sufficient
enough quantity that if I have a question about insurance, I will not
rely on what their web-site says and instead now telephone them, record
the conversation and then follow it up with an e-mail to them.

In short, their web-site has statements on it that are contradictory and
their advice is always to revert to the policy documents and go off what
the documents say.

But, for the avoidance of doubt, LV='s SD&P excludes commuting unless
one opts for Social, Domestic & Pleasure including commuting".

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

I commend to you in the strongest possible terms EIM31617 [1].

It uses as an example a computer which is used 40% of the time for
personal use.

Having detailed how to apportion the costs, it concludes with:

"Note also that there is no need to calculate the benefit of the
computer at all if private use of it by the employee, and members of
their family or household, is not significant. See EIM21611. The figure
of 40% private use in the above example is “significant”."

If Roland's personal use of the "Fleet Policy" on his car was not
"significant", "there is no need to calculate the benefit of it.".

Similarly, I comment to you in similarly strong terms BIM37400 [2] which
says:

"But an expense is not disallowed by S34(1)(a) ITTOIA 2005 (for
unincorporated businesses) and S54(1)(a) CTA 2009 (for companies)
because the trader (or third party) obtains an incidental or personal
benefit provided that it was not part of the purpose in incurring the
expense to secure such benefit."

> I'm sure Ann Mallalieu might agree?

I fear you're barking up the wrong case. You'd be far better served
referring to Bentleys, Stokes & Lowless v Beeson [1952] 33 TC 491 which
was codified into S45 ITTOIA 2005 and later S1298 CTA 2009.

Please be assured that when I say I've taken guidance from HMRC on a
matter then I have indeed been given specific advice on the matter by
HMRC and am not relying on Google searches and the like.

And if you believe the guidance HMRC have provided is wrong, I invite
you to take it up with them directly, or alternatively to provide your
bona fides and details of your professional liability insurance and I'll
gladly consider taking paid for advice from you should the need arise in
the future.

Regards

S.P.

[1]
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim31617
[2] https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim37400

[Roger Hayter]

On 8 Jan 2024 at 13:52:54 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 07/01/2024 21:35, Fredxx wrote:
>>

snip particular tax question

> Please be assured that when I say I've taken guidance from HMRC on a
> matter then I have indeed been given specific advice on the matter by
> HMRC and am not relying on Google searches and the like.
>
> And if you believe the guidance HMRC have provided is wrong, I invite
> you to take it up with them directly, or alternatively to provide your
> bona fides and details of your professional liability insurance and I'll
> gladly consider taking paid for advice from you should the need arise in
> the future.
>
> Regards
>
> S.P.
>
>

I don't think you can guaratee that everyone gets the same advice from HMRC in
a similar situation. For instance, I had a question about a sum received by
the estate from a state occupational pension provider as to whether a
particular sum was the (taxable) income of the estate or the (not taxable in
this case) income of the deceased relating to a previous tax year. HMRC's
advice was to ask $PENSION_PROVIDER how they normally treated such payments
for tax purposes, which I thought an odd transfer of responsibility. But it
worked in my favour.

--
Roger Hayter

[Fredxx]

Which for most people is the norm.

> "If you have to travel to more than one place of work, or you're a
> travelling or commercial sales person for example, you'll need to let us
> know that your vehicle is used for business."
>
> From:
> https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/am-i-insured-to-drive-my-car-for-business-use
>
> Which is in complete agreement with my previous post on the matter.

No, you said, "Social, Domestic and Pleasure *DOES NOT* cover travel to
and from work".

As per your own quote you must accept this was wrong, where you are
confusing driving "to one single place of work" and business use.

[Fredxx]

Which is primarily associated with entertainment where food is purchased
during a work occasion or meeting.

How can the case surrounding Ann Mallalieu be a 'wrong' case;

> Please be assured that when I say I've taken guidance from HMRC on a
> matter then I have indeed been given specific advice on the matter by
> HMRC and am not relying on Google searches and the like.

So have I, and there are very specific conditions where wholly and
exclusively are allowed for personal consumption.

> And if you believe the guidance HMRC have provided is wrong, I invite
> you to take it up with them directly, or alternatively to provide your
> bona fides and details of your professional liability insurance and I'll
> gladly consider taking paid for advice from you should the need arise in
> the future.

It is the interpretation of the guidance you've been given I call into
question. And yes, HMRC do sometimes get things wrong too.

[Norman Wells]

On 08/01/2024 13:25, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 21:29, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 07/01/2024 19:49, Simon Parker wrote:

>>> I recommend checking the class of insurance cover you have.
>>>
>>> Social, Domestic and Pleasure *DOES NOT* cover travel to and from work,
>>
>> Generally, it does.
>
> Generally it doesn't.
>
>> For example:
>>
>> "Social, domestic, and pleasure (SD&P) refers to an insurance policy
>> that permits personal trips in your car. It includes cover for
>> everyday activities such as driving to the shops, visiting family, or
>> commuting between home and work".
>>
>> https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/for-car-insurance-what-is-our-definition-of-social-domestic-and-pleasure-including-commuting
>
> That is "Social Domestic and Pleasure *including commuting*" as the URL
> makes clear. (Highlighting mine.)

Then you would think it might say that in the text rather than in a url.
But it doesn't, so it isn't.

What is does actually say is this:

"With LV= Car Insurance we define SD&P as including driving to a single
workplace, provided there are no business-related stops made during the
journey."

That's as clear as day if you ask me, and it's contrary to what you
proclaimed above with absolute certainty.

> For further information see:
>
> "Am I insured to drive my car for business use?

We're not talking about 'business use'. We're talking about commuting,
which is not usually regarded as 'business use'. It is 'commuting',
which may require 'commuting' to be included in the class of insurance
you need *without* having to have business use cover.

> "You're covered to drive to one single place of work if you choose
> 'Social, Domestic & Pleasure + Commuting' for your type of use.
>
> "If you have to travel to more than one place of work, or you're a
> travelling or commercial sales person for example, you'll need to let us
> know that your vehicle is used for business."
>
> From:
> https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/am-i-insured-to-drive-my-car-for-business-use
>
> Which is in complete agreement with my previous post on the matter.

No it isn't.

You said, indeed you emphasised it by shouting, "Social, Domestic and
Pleasure *DOES NOT* cover travel to and from work".

It may do, it can, and it often does. It depends on your insurer. Even
your own!

> I have previously stated that I have a multi-vehicle multi-driver policy
> with LV=.  Each driver / vehicle combination has a different class of
> insurance.  For example, my wife has "Social, Domestic and Pleasure
> Only" for the car for which I am the main driver.  Please find below the
> text I've just copied and pasted from the policy document which details
> the use of my car for which she is insured, namely "Social, Domestic and
> Pleasure Only":
>
> "Covered for social, domestic and pleasure use, *excluding commuting to
> work*." (Highlighting mine.)

It wouldn't be necessary to specify that unless the general position, as
my quote above shows, is that it is covered.

> Now, please tell me, with reference to the statement above (taken from
> an LV= policy document) whether or not "Social, Domestic and Pleasure
> Only" cover includes or excludes "commuting to work"?

It certainly won't if you've decided specifically to exclude it in order
to save a few quid, which seems to be the case.

> I will add that, as someone that has been insured with LV= for some
> time, I can state unequivocally that it contains mistakes in sufficient
> enough quantity that if I have a question about insurance, I will not
> rely on what their web-site says and instead now telephone them, record
> the conversation and then follow it up with an e-mail to them.
>
> In short, their web-site has statements on it that are contradictory and
> their advice is always to revert to the policy documents and go off what
> the documents say.
>
> But, for the avoidance of doubt, LV='s SD&P excludes commuting unless
> one opts for Social, Domestic & Pleasure including commuting".

Unless their website is lying, that's just not true for the reasons
given above.

Other insurers may or may not require you to have specific commuting cover.

For example:

"Social Domestic and Pleasure cover includes travel/commuting to and
from your normal place of work or study and any voluntary work."

https://community.tescobank.com/content/3569-With-Box-Insurance-can-I-use-my-car-to-travel-to-work

"Things like going to the shops, collecting family members or friends
and commuting between your home and your place of work or study are all
covered by this class of cover."

https://www.123.ie/customer-care/my-policy-cover/am-i-covered/what-is-covered-by-social-domestic-and-pleasure-use

It's far from universal that separate commuting cover is required, and I
think you therefore need to row back from your absolute and misleading
'DOES NOT' statement above.

[JNugent]

You most certainly *can* (or may) do it when self-employed.

I used the 45p a mile method (submitting a P&L a/c as well as the
self-assessment form) for several years until the pandemic.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:40:56 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 05/01/2024 16:19, Peter Johnson wrote:
>> The person I spoke to said that I could probably reduce the
>> price if I added another driver to the policy, even it they didn't
>> drive the car and weren't a member of the same household.
>

>My wife and I are on our son's car insurance for that reason.

As per my comments in a different thread, my "insurance girlfriend" saved me
money on my policy even though she rarely, if ever, drove the car.

>He's a lot older now than when this started, and I suspect it doesn't
>make as much difference as it did.

It's not so much about the different demographics of different drivers. It's
more that, statistically, cars which have multiple drivers tend to have
fewer claims. That may seem counterintuitive, but a plausible explanation
that I've heard made by an acquaintance who works in statistics is that
people who share a car tend to look after it better, for fear of the other
person's wrath if they damage it.

>I have a feeling that one day we'll be old enough to be making his
>insurance _more_ expensive than less.

For the same reason, that's not particularly likely. Older drivers are also
less likely, statistically, to make a claim, even though their driving
skills do, objectively, deteriorate over time. Again, that's
counterintuitive, but the explanation is that cumulative experience, and
dissipated aggression, outweighs the degradation in skills. Older drivers
drive more carefully and more defensively, and are better at assessing risk
than younger drivers.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <une9kc$13a4b$2...@dont-email.me>, at 13:40:29 on Sun, 7 Jan
2024, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:

The concept of "exclusively" only really applies to HMRC's decisions
about the allowability of the expenses. The worst that could happen is
they wanted 20% as tax, but I'd still have the other 80%.

>The alternative would be paying a call-out fee that some services offer
>that you could then claim back. I still think there could be a benefit
>in kind?

Good luck finding such services which can respond in time for you to get
to work even the same day. And it's not a benefit to me, because I'd be
happy to (eg) change a tyre myself. It's the employer who *insists* I
shouldn't do, so surely they should pay for it.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l00did...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:49:32 on Sun, 7 Jan

2024, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>there are a number of caveats.  For example, it is only for
>>>"consumer" policies.  So if you have 'business use' on *any* vehicle
>>>on the policy, GIPP doesn't apply.

>> That's interesting, I think I might still have "business use" on my
>>car because although I finally retired from the job just before Xmas
>>the employer insisted I had it, just in case when triggering their
>>"you must be prepared to work anywhere at any time, if we have a
>>crisis" clause in the employment contract it would involve me driving
>>during work hours from one of their locations to another (rather than
>>walking or getting the largely non-existent bus).
>
>I recommend checking the class of insurance cover you have.
>
>Social, Domestic and Pleasure *DOES NOT* cover travel to and from work,
>or use for any work-related purposes.
>
>Social, Domestic, Pleasure *and Commuting* typically covers travelling
>from/to home to/from a single permanent place of employment but not any
>other work-related use.
>
>If you work at multiple locations, even if for the same company, you
>likely need business use. Similarly, if you ever travel between one
>place of employment and another, that too likely requires business use.
>Or if you use the car to visit clients... or suppliers... etc.

The modality I was highlighting is that travel to the station, or
airport, for onward travel to a one-off work-related assignment [mine
were mainly conferences (or the committee organising it the couple of
years beforehand) of the COP28 kind we sometimes see on the news] is
also regarded as requiring full-business-use insurance.

I wonder how many of the victims of the recent fire at Luton Airport's
car park will find they were in fact uninsured (if their trip wasn't
100% a vacation).

>I would suggest that most people that are self-employed, or work for
>more than one employer and / or at more than one location need business
>use which instantly puts them outside GIPP as it is no longer a
>"consumer" policy.

+1
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <2k5opi9hnduhc4nm6...@4ax.com>, at 15:46:12 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>As per my comments in a different thread, my "insurance girlfriend" saved me
>money on my policy even though she rarely, if ever, drove the car.
>
>>He's a lot older now than when this started, and I suspect it doesn't
>>make as much difference as it did.
>
>It's not so much about the different demographics of different drivers. It's
>more that, statistically, cars which have multiple drivers tend to have
>fewer claims. That may seem counterintuitive, but a plausible explanation
>that I've heard made by an acquaintance who works in statistics is that
>people who share a car tend to look after it better, for fear of the other
>person's wrath if they damage it.

Absolutely. Both my children are named drivers and can borrow my car if
they feel the need (but rarely seem to feel the need to top up the fuel
tank). They are both under no illusion if they bring it back with a dent
in, they'll get their bottoms verbally spanked unmercifully and will
never live it down...
--
Roland Perry

[The Todal]

You are right, of course. It depends on the insurer.

I ended up using Tesco Insurance, because the premium was very
competitive (a few months have passed and now Tesco quote much higher
premiums). I stipulated social domestic and pleasure.

My Certificate of Motor Insurance says:

Use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes.
EXCLUSIONS - The policy does not cover use for commuting, any business
purpose, any purpose in connection with the motor trade, carriage of
passengers or goods for hire or reward, or for hiring, racing,
competitions, rallies, trials, pace-making or speed testing.

[The Todal]

On 07/01/2024 21:29, Norman Wells wrote:

Well, just fancy that. My motor insurance policy last year was with that
same LV (Liverpool Victoria) and I stipulated social, domestic and pleasure.

Here's what my certificate of motor insurance says:

Limitations as to use
Social, domestic and pleasure use, excluding travelling to work.

unquote. So, Norman, you've made an elementary mistake. You've
referenced a page which gives a definition of "social domestic and
pleasure including commuting" and you've assumed, illogically, that
social domestic and pleasure always includes commuting.

[Roland Perry]

In message <l00nlj...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:41:55 on Sun, 7 Jan
2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:

>>>> They also separately recently introduced a new "Health and Safety"
>>>>element to the organisation's transport policy that if I were to
>>>>break down while undergoing a shuttle like that, I MUST NOT attempt
>>>>to fix it myself at the roadside, but sit there awaiting a
>>>>professional repair service such as AA/RAC.
>>>>
>>>> It did vaguely cross my mind that perhaps I should have put the
>>>>cost of obtaining the latter on my expenses, and now maybe even
>>>>have put this extra cost of basic insurance on as well. ie Not just
>>>>the extra cost of the 'business use' itself, but the cost of the
>>>>policy not being covered by GIPP.
>>>
>>> But that would hardly be an expense exclusively for work, unless you
>>>kept two policies?

>> Yes it would because he'd (technically) need a "Fleet Policy" which
>>is classed as a business expense.  Please feel free to ask HMRC if
>>you don't believe me, but I can save you the time and trouble as I
>>have asked them in the past.  (For the self-employed, they include
>>"breakdown cover on a vehicle as an allowable expense here:
>>https://www.gov.uk/expenses-if-youre-self-employed/travel)
>
>I used to prefer to just claim the 45p a mile for business miles, which
>would cover fuel and a proportion of insurance, road tax, servicing,
>repairs and spares.

Which completely and utterly misses the point. The breakdown
insurance was required *in case* I *were* ever to be assigned to
a different workplace in accordance with the employment contract.

In almost six years it never happened. So zero x 45p/mile is ***ZERO***
--
Roland Perry

[Theo]

Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 13:25, Simon Parker wrote:
> >> https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/for-car-insurance-what-is-our-definition-of-social-domestic-and-pleasure-including-commuting
> >
> > That is "Social Domestic and Pleasure *including commuting*" as the URL
> > makes clear. (Highlighting mine.)
>
> Then you would think it might say that in the text rather than in a url.
> But it doesn't, so it isn't.

It does, in large header text:

"For car insurance what is our definition of Social, Domestic and Pleasure including
commuting?"

> What is does actually say is this:
>
> "With LV= Car Insurance we define SD&P as including driving to a single
> workplace, provided there are no business-related stops made during the
> journey."
>
> That's as clear as day if you ask me, and it's contrary to what you
> proclaimed above with absolute certainty.

It is possible certain insurers don't distinguish between SD&P and SD&P+C.
Others do. Price comparison sites ask a superset of the questions to feed
data to all the insurers' pricing models.

For example some home insurers ask:
"Are there any trees taller than 10m within 5m of your home?"
whereas the price comparison site may ask:
"Are there any trees within 5m of your home?"
"Are any of those trees taller than 10m?"

because presumably some insurer cares about trees shorter than 10m.

> > For further information see:
> >
> > "Am I insured to drive my car for business use?
>
> We're not talking about 'business use'. We're talking about commuting,
> which is not usually regarded as 'business use'. It is 'commuting',
> which may require 'commuting' to be included in the class of insurance
> you need *without* having to have business use cover.

Indeed.

> > "You're covered to drive to one single place of work if you choose
> > 'Social, Domestic & Pleasure + Commuting' for your type of use.
> >
> > "If you have to travel to more than one place of work, or you're a
> > travelling or commercial sales person for example, you'll need to let us
> > know that your vehicle is used for business."
> >
> > From:
> > https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/am-i-insured-to-drive-my-car-for-business-use
> >
> > Which is in complete agreement with my previous post on the matter.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> You said, indeed you emphasised it by shouting, "Social, Domestic and
> Pleasure *DOES NOT* cover travel to and from work".

SD&P does not. SD&P+C does.

> It may do, it can, and it often does. It depends on your insurer. Even
> your own!

The insurer may lump SD&P and SD&P+C together into a single pricing
category. It doesn't change the generally-understood definition of SD&P.

> It's far from universal that separate commuting cover is required, and I
> think you therefore need to row back from your absolute and misleading
> 'DOES NOT' statement above.

You will have to read the policy wording to inspect their definitions, but
it is likely they define SD&P separately, and then offer cover which offers
'SD&P and commuting to a single place of work', which is SD&P+C.

Theo

[Fredxx]

The would also want NI payments as well your employers NI payments.

A way forward would be for your employer to provide their insurance
cover for when you're travelling on behalf of the company.

>> The alternative would be paying a call-out fee that some services
>> offer that you could then claim back. I still think there could be a
>> benefit in kind?
>
> Good luck finding such services which can respond in time for you to get
> to work even the same day. And it's not a benefit to me, because I'd be
> happy to (eg) change a tyre myself. It's the employer who *insists* I
> shouldn't do, so surely they should pay for it.

My point is either the cost must be a direct expense or it's a benefit
in kind. The general rule for allowed expenses is that any payment from
your employer for you to carry out your work must only have incidental
personal use.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 14:29:38 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>What is does actually say is this:
>
>"With LV= Car Insurance we define SD&P as including driving to a single
>workplace, provided there are no business-related stops made during the
>journey."

"We".

That's a very important word. It means that LV are explicitly stating that
this definition is specific to them. There is, therefore, no expectation
that it will necessarily apply to other insurers.

Historically, SD&P did not include commuting. It is becoming more common for
it to do so. But it is still a long way from the norm. What is becoming more
common is for insurers to simply no longer sell pure SD&P, and instead make
SDP&C the basic level of cover.

Mark

[The Todal]

But he's not wrong, he's actually right.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2024-01-08, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> My Certificate of Motor Insurance says:
>
> Use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes.
> EXCLUSIONS - The policy does not cover use for commuting, any business
> purpose, any purpose in connection with the motor trade, carriage of
> passengers or goods for hire or reward, or for hiring, racing,
> competitions, rallies, trials, pace-making or speed testing.

Out of interest, if you did use it for, say, racing on public streets,
would you be committing the crime of driving without insurance, or
would it simply mean that your insurer would seek to reclaim the cost
of any claim from you?

[Andy Burns]

The Todal wrote:

> Here's what my certificate of motor insurance says:
>
> Limitations as to use
> Social, domestic and pleasure use, excluding travelling to work.
>
> unquote. So, Norman, you've made an elementary mistake. You've
> referenced a page which gives a definition of "social domestic and
> pleasure including commuting" and you've assumed, illogically, that
> social domestic and pleasure always includes commuting.

My LV= policy says "Social, domestic and pleasure use and also
additional business use, excluding commercial travelling"

It's almost as though they personalise them per ... erm ... person.

[Fredxx]

That's an admission that "Social, domestic and pleasure use" included
travelling to work, and that the policy specifically excludes
"travelling to work".

If "Social, domestic and pleasure use" didn't include ""travelling to
work"" there would be no need to mention it.

> unquote. So, Norman, you've made an elementary mistake. You've
> referenced a page which gives a definition of "social domestic and
> pleasure including commuting" and you've assumed, illogically, that
> social domestic and pleasure always includes commuting.

I don't agree. The link specifically says "Social, domestic, and

pleasure (SD&P) refers to an insurance policy that permits personal
trips in your car. It includes cover for everyday activities such as
driving to the shops, visiting family, or commuting between home and

work." It then goes on to provide exclusions.

While I might accept there might be variations of perceived SD&P, LV
provide their definition of SD&P, and that it *always* includes commuting.

Any exclusion regards commuting has to be written in the policy, as is
yours.

I'm sorry, while I initially thought NW was wrong, in this case it you
who has made an elementary mistake.

[The Todal]

I think I'd be committing the crime of driving without insurance but
under the Road Traffic Act any insurer who has issued a policy is
obliged to deal with claims of a third party (eg if I collided with
someone) but would have the right to reclaim that outlay from me.

[Jon Ribbens]

So does that mean that someone who has a SD&P policy and is commuting
to work is unknowingly committing a criminal offence ten times a week?
That seems a bit harsh.

[JNugent]

On 08/01/2024 04:15 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 14:29:38 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>> What is does actually say is this:
>>
>> "With LV= Car Insurance we define SD&P as including driving to a single
>> workplace, provided there are no business-related stops made during the
>> journey."
>
> "We".
>
> That's a very important word. It means that LV are explicitly stating that
> this definition is specific to them. There is, therefore, no expectation
> that it will necessarily apply to other insurers.

They would use the word "we" irrespective of what other insurers do.
Even if every other insurer had the same approach.

[JNugent]

So... what IS "the point"?

The sub-thread is about how to account to HMRC for business travel
expenses incurred in use of a car.

[Fredxx]

Not if they quote the LV website. If commuting is excluded in the policy
wording then they may be commuting an offence, but exactly what I don't
know as they would have a 'valid' insurance policy.

[Tim Jackson]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 23:50:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...

>
> >> On 2024-01-08, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> >>> My Certificate of Motor Insurance says:
> >>>
> >>> Use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes.
> >>> EXCLUSIONS - The policy does not cover use for commuting, any business
> >>> purpose, any purpose in connection with the motor trade, carriage of
> >>> passengers or goods for hire or reward, or for hiring, racing,
> >>> competitions, rallies, trials, pace-making or speed testing.
> >>

[snip]

>
> So does that mean that someone who has a SD&P policy and is commuting
> to work is unknowingly committing a criminal offence ten times a week?
> That seems a bit harsh.

It's been noted that different insurers treat things in different ways.
My SD&P policy would cover commuting automatically, but Todal's insurer
apparently sees it as separate.

Adding business use was pretty cheap (but commercial travelling was
excluded).

Last year I added a friend as a named driver, as we were going to be
sharing the driving on a weekend away. My insurer suggested it would be
cheaper to add him for the rest of the policy year rather than just the
weekend. This resulted in a 30p reduction in the premium (the admin
charge for amending the policy mid-year was reduced from GBP 15 to GBP
14.70)

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Simon Parker]

On 08/01/2024 15:53, Fredxx wrote:

No.

There's "Social, Domestic and Pleasure", with an invisible "only" on the
end, which some insurers abbreviate as "Social".

This cover does not include travelling to and from work, nor for that
matter driving to a train station and leaving the car in the car park
there and catching a train to work as that too is classed as "Commuting".

Which brings us to "Social, Domestic and Pleasure plus commuting" which
covers travelling to and from a single place of work (and leaving the
car in a car park to catch a train to the office).

Then there's "Business Use" which is often sub-divided into various classes.

Not forgetting "Commercial" (for professional drivers, i.e. taxi
drivers) and "Courier" (for well, I don't think it needs spelling out).

As I have said previously in the thread, I have complex insurance needs
and a good friend that owns an insurance brokers. This is a subject I
have researched extensively to ensure that the vehicles that I and the
other members of my household use are insured correctly as the last
thing I want is a policy voiding should I try and make a claim.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

It isn't that personal, unfortunately.

There used to be six general classes of vehicle usage, but some
underwriters are now splitting the sixth group into two, creating a
seventh group in the process:

(1) Social, Domestic and Pleasure
(2) Social, Domestic and Pleasure plus Commuting
(3) Business Class 1 (SDP+C and driving to and between multiple places
of business for the policy holder only (e.g. care worker))
(4) Business Class 2 (as class 1 but with additional named driver(s))
(5) Business Class 3 (aka "Road Warrior" insurance. (e.g. Sales reps
where driving is a significant part of the employment and carrying
samples may form part of the role)
(6) Commercial (driving is an integral part of the employment. (e.g.
taxi driver, driving instructor, etc.)

Some underwriters include making deliveries within group six but some
have now split "Courier" off into its own group

(7) Courier (which includes making any delivery for hire or reward,
including Deliveroo, etc.)

Most vehicle usage falls into one of those groups. The exception being
racing which is a whole different ball game and usually available only
via specialist channels.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 08/01/2024 20:54, Fredxx wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 19:25, The Todal wrote:
>> On 07/01/2024 21:29, Norman Wells wrote:

>>> Generally, it does.  For example:
>>>
>>> "Social, domestic, and pleasure (SD&P) refers to an insurance policy
>>> that permits personal trips in your car. It includes cover for
>>> everyday activities such as driving to the shops, visiting family, or
>>> commuting between home and work".
>>>
>>> https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/for-car-insurance-what-is-our-definition-of-social-domestic-and-pleasure-including-commuting

>> Well, just fancy that. My motor insurance policy last year was with
>> that same LV (Liverpool Victoria) and I stipulated social, domestic
>> and pleasure.
>>
>> Here's what my certificate of motor insurance says:
>>
>> Limitations as to use
>> Social, domestic and pleasure use, excluding travelling to work.
>
> That's an admission that "Social, domestic and pleasure use" included
> travelling to work, and that the policy specifically excludes
> "travelling to work".
>
> If "Social, domestic and pleasure use" didn't include ""travelling to
> work"" there would be no need to mention it.

No. It is the insurer making clear that "Social, Domestic and Pleasure"
does not include cover for "Commuting". If you need cover for
commuting, you need "Social, Domestic and Pleasure plus Commuting" which
is the next group along.

>> unquote. So, Norman, you've made an elementary mistake. You've
>> referenced a page which gives a definition of "social domestic and
>> pleasure including commuting" and you've assumed, illogically, that
>> social domestic and pleasure always includes commuting.
>
> I don't agree. The link specifically says "Social, domestic, and
> pleasure (SD&P) refers to an insurance policy that permits personal
> trips in your car. It includes cover for everyday activities such as
> driving to the shops, visiting family, or commuting between home and
> work." It then goes on to provide exclusions.

As I've said to Norman, I recommend paying more attention to the
question that statement is answering, rather than the words that were
plugged into Google to arrive at that page. (IMO, it is no coincidence
that the LV= page is the first page listed in Google for the relevant
search term and that this is the page that Norman went on to quote,
wrongly as it happens.)

> While I might accept there might be variations of perceived SD&P, LV
> provide their definition of SD&P, and that it *always* includes commuting.

No. Their definition of "Social, Domestic and Pleasure plus Commuting"
includes commuting, which I don't think will be a surprise to anyone,
except perhaps Norman and maybe yourself.

> Any exclusion regards commuting has to be written in the policy, as is
> yours.

I respectfully disagree. You have it the wrong way round. For
commuting to be included in the policy it has to be stated in the policy
documents. LV= and other insurers have ensured that their text for SDP
policies makes it clear that the policy does not cover commuting.

> I'm sorry, while I initially thought NW was wrong, in this case it you
> who has made an elementary mistake.

We must agree to differ.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 08/01/2024 14:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2024 at 13:52:54 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2024 21:35, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>
> snip particular tax question
>> Please be assured that when I say I've taken guidance from HMRC on a
>> matter then I have indeed been given specific advice on the matter by
>> HMRC and am not relying on Google searches and the like.
>>
>> And if you believe the guidance HMRC have provided is wrong, I invite
>> you to take it up with them directly, or alternatively to provide your
>> bona fides and details of your professional liability insurance and I'll
>> gladly consider taking paid for advice from you should the need arise in
>> the future.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> S.P.
>>
>>
> I don't think you can guaratee that everyone gets the same advice from HMRC in
> a similar situation. For instance, I had a question about a sum received by
> the estate from a state occupational pension provider as to whether a
> particular sum was the (taxable) income of the estate or the (not taxable in
> this case) income of the deceased relating to a previous tax year. HMRC's
> advice was to ask $PENSION_PROVIDER how they normally treated such payments
> for tax purposes, which I thought an odd transfer of responsibility. But it
> worked in my favour.

There is "information", there is "advice" and there is "guidance".

You received none of those from HMRC and if HMRC later decided that
$PENSION_PROVIDER had erred with the advice proffered to you, you would
be liable for whatever tax, penalties and / or fines HMRC levied against
you.

You describe the scenario you have outlined as a transfer of
responsibility whereas I see it as a transfer of liability.

In the circumstances outlined, had the advice turned out to be flawed,
you may have had a case against $PENSION_PROVIDER but that is between
you and them and nothing to do with HMRC.

Since the 30th of June 2023 [1], HMRC can be held liable if one relies
upon information, advice and / or guidance from HMRC which later turns
out to be incorrect, (with suitable caveats like you didn't provide any
false / incorrect information when requesting information, advice or
guidance and can prove that you were relying on information, advice or
guidance issued by HMRC when you did whatever it is you did with which
HMRC has now raised an issue). The same is not true for advice from
$PENSION_PROVIDER and / or others.

Regards

S.P.

[1]
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/when-you-can-rely-on-information-or-advice-provided-by-hm-revenue-and-customs

[Simon Parker]

On 08/01/2024 14:29, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 08/01/2024 13:25, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 07/01/2024 21:29, Norman Wells wrote:

>>> For example:
>>>
>>> "Social, domestic, and pleasure (SD&P) refers to an insurance policy
>>> that permits personal trips in your car. It includes cover for
>>> everyday activities such as driving to the shops, visiting family, or
>>> commuting between home and work".
>>>
>>> https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/for-car-insurance-what-is-our-definition-of-social-domestic-and-pleasure-including-commuting
>>

>> That is "Social Domestic and Pleasure *including commuting*" as the
>> URL makes clear. (Highlighting mine.)
>

> Then you would think it might say that in the text rather than in a url.
>  But it doesn't, so it isn't.

You mean like it "doesn't" in the heading where it asks the question:
"For car insurance what is our definition of Social, Domestic and
Pleasure *including commuting*?" (highlighting mine)

You really need to check the results of your Google searches more
carefully before posting them here.

> What is does actually say is this:
>
> "With LV= Car Insurance we define SD&P as including driving to a single
> workplace, provided there are no business-related stops made during the
> journey."

Yes, because it includes commuting. Please check the heading of the
page from which you're quoting and the actual question the text you're
quoting is answering. LV= also do "SD&P Only" which is what I have for
a driver on my policy and it absolutely does not include commuting as
the policy documents make clear.

> That's as clear as day if you ask me, and it's contrary to what you
> proclaimed above with absolute certainty.

I didn't ask you nor would I ever be tempted to ask you as you have a
talent for getting things spectacularly wrong of which your posts to
this thread is merely the latest example.

>> For further information see:
>>
>> "Am I insured to drive my car for business use?
>

> We're not talking about 'business use'.  We're talking about commuting,
> which is not usually regarded as 'business use'.  It is 'commuting',
> which may require 'commuting' to be included in the class of insurance
> you need *without* having to have business use cover.

Commuting is not social use of the vehicle, it is not domestic use and
it is not for pleasure. It is different from all three of those and is
in a class of its own called, unsurprisingly, "Commuting".

>> "You're covered to drive to one single place of work if you choose
>> 'Social, Domestic & Pleasure + Commuting' for your type of use.
>>

>> "If you have to travel to more than one place of work, or you're a
>> travelling or commercial sales person for example, you'll need to let
>> us know that your vehicle is used for business."
>>
>> From:
>> https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/am-i-insured-to-drive-my-car-for-business-use
>>
>> Which is in complete agreement with my previous post on the matter.
>

> No it isn't.

This is a moderated group so I will simply reply that we must agree to
differ.


> You said, indeed you emphasised it by shouting, "Social, Domestic and

> Pleasure *DOES NOT* cover travel to and from work".
>

> It may do, it can, and it often does.  It depends on your insurer.  Even
> your own!

I would say commuting is rarely included in SD&P because the risk
profile for commuting is completely different.


>> I have previously stated that I have a multi-vehicle multi-driver
>> policy with LV=.  Each driver / vehicle combination has a different
>> class of insurance.  For example, my wife has "Social, Domestic and
>> Pleasure Only" for the car for which I am the main driver.  Please
>> find below the text I've just copied and pasted from the policy
>> document which details the use of my car for which she is insured,
>> namely "Social, Domestic and Pleasure Only":
>>
>> "Covered for social, domestic and pleasure use, *excluding commuting
>> to work*." (Highlighting mine.)
>
> It wouldn't be necessary to specify that unless the general position, as
> my quote above shows, is that it is covered.

It is necessary to state that so that there is no ambiguity, confusion
or misunderstanding. By stating it so clearly on the policy documents I
cannot say: "But I thought 'commuting' was included in Social, Domestic
and Pleasure." Similarly, should they wish to repudiate cover they can
say: "We clearly stated commuting is not included. You've been using
the vehicle for commuting. Your policy doesn't cover you."


>> Now, please tell me, with reference to the statement above (taken from
>> an LV= policy document) whether or not "Social, Domestic and Pleasure
>> Only" cover includes or excludes "commuting to work"?
>
> It certainly won't if you've decided specifically to exclude it in order
> to save a few quid, which seems to be the case.

Oh dear! I fear you've woefully misdirected yourself, again. My annual
vehicle insurance bill is several thousand pounds. "A few quid" is
neither here not there. There is a very good reason why my wife doesn't
have "commuting" cover and it is related to her stated profession. (You
can have a guess at her stated profession if you like, as it will
undoubtedly clear things up for you.) The fact she doesn't have
'commuting' cover is at the underwriter's insistence, not at my request,
as it reflects her use of the vehicles. And it actually makes the
policy more expensive, rather than cheaper. (With a multi-driver
multi-car policy, it is generally cheaper if the cars and drivers are
broadly similar. My insurance would undoubtedly be cheaper if my wife
had "Business" class use across all vehicles but the underwriters won't
allow it.)

Anything else you'd like to get wrong or are you going to take a day off
from posting incorrect information?


>> I will add that, as someone that has been insured with LV= for some
>> time, I can state unequivocally that it contains mistakes in
>> sufficient enough quantity that if I have a question about insurance,
>> I will not rely on what their web-site says and instead now telephone
>> them, record the conversation and then follow it up with an e-mail to
>> them.
>>
>> In short, their web-site has statements on it that are contradictory
>> and their advice is always to revert to the policy documents and go
>> off what the documents say.
>>
>> But, for the avoidance of doubt, LV='s SD&P excludes commuting unless
>> one opts for Social, Domestic & Pleasure including commuting".
>
> Unless their website is lying, that's just not true for the reasons
> given above.

Their web-site is a crock of <$insert your own expletive here$>. I've
spoken to several members of their customer service team over the years
that have said as much.

However, in the instant case, you have misunderstood what the page is
saying. The question asked at the page you've cited is: "For car
insurance what is our definition of Social, Domestic and Pleasure
including commuting?" I recommend paying particular attention to those
last two words of the question to which you posted the answer.

The correct page for LV='s definitions of the various classes of
insurance is here:
https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/is-your-car-insurance-policy-fit-for-purpose
where we find the following:

<quote>
There are six different classes of use, these include:

Social, domestic and pleasure (SDP)
This is the right policy for you if your car is used for errands,
visiting family and friends, and going on holiday. It encompasses all
non-work-related driving.

Social, domestic, pleasure and commuting (SDP+C)
This policy covers everything in SDP but should be chosen if you use
your vehicle to drive to work and store it in a public car park (or any
public space) during the day. This also includes train station car
parks, for example, if you use your car for ‘half’ of a commute.

Business use (SDPC+B) (Classes 1, 2, and 3)
Business use policies are split between three classes, so it’s worth
evaluating each policy type, and discussing with your insurer, to see
which best suits you and your driving habits.
Generally, however, business use policies should be chosen if you use
your car for your job – not just to get to it. This includes visiting
clients, for example, if you are a healthcare worker, or travel-based
hairdresser or beautician.
In classes 2 and 3, this can also include another named driver, or
driving colleagues, clients, or stock around as part of your regular role.

Commercial
In some aspects a commercial policy may overlap with business insurance,
so you should make sure you’re best suited to this policy type before
making your decision. The commercial class is right for those who are on
the road for the majority of the day, either carrying people and goods –
for example, driving instructors and taxi drivers.
<end quote>

Note that SDP "encompasses all non-work-related driving" whereas SDP+C
"should be chosen if you use your vehicle to drive to work".


> Other insurers may or may not require you to have specific commuting cover.
>
> For example:
>
> "Social Domestic and Pleasure cover includes travel/commuting to and
> from your normal place of work or study and any voluntary work."
>
> https://community.tescobank.com/content/3569-With-Box-Insurance-can-I-use-my-car-to-travel-to-work

That is a "Black Box" policy which is a whole different beast
altogether. As I've said previously, you really do need to pay better
attention to the sources you're quoting in support of your argument.


> "Things like going to the shops, collecting family members or friends
> and commuting between your home and your place of work or study are all
> covered by this class of cover."
>
> https://www.123.ie/customer-care/my-policy-cover/am-i-covered/what-is-covered-by-social-domestic-and-pleasure-use

And that's an Irish insurer (the clue is in the .ie TLD).

Again, you need to pay better attention to your quoted sources.

> It's far from universal that separate commuting cover is required, and I
> think you therefore need to row back from your absolute and misleading
> 'DOES NOT' statement above.

Frankly, I don't care what you think. Your posts in this thread alone
have demonstrated that you do not have a grasp of the subject on which
you are attempting to post as an authority and have relied on Google
searches, (and not very careful ones at that), to arrive at your
erroneous position.

Regards

S.P.

[Roland Perry]

In message <l03039...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:18:01 on Mon, 8 Jan
2024, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:

Which of course nowadays includes being a part-time Hermes/Evri delivery
driver. However, policies also tend to have an overlapping restriction
to rub that in.

I do wonder about the fleets of quite clearly part-time drivers doing
fast food deliveries in the evening. My local Chinese takeaway has an
almost constant stream of them.

>or for hiring, racing, competitions, rallies, trials, pace-making or
>speed testing.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l04dss...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:19:40 on Tue, 9 Jan

2024, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

>There's "Social, Domestic and Pleasure", with an invisible "only" on
>the end, which some insurers abbreviate as "Social".
>
>This cover does not include travelling to and from work, nor for that
>matter driving to a train station and leaving the car in the car park
>there and catching a train to work as that too is classed as "Commuting".

I wonder what the situation is if you give your partner a lift to the
station, then return home (either because *you* work from home, are
retired, or whatever).
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l03cid...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:50:54 on Mon, 8 Jan

That the company travel policy imposed a cost on me that I couldn't
claim. Unless you think I could include it as a deductible expense on
my self-assessment tax form, which I very much doubt.

>The sub-thread is about how to account to HMRC for business travel
>expenses incurred in use of a car.

Amongst other things.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <unhgto$1kskq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:21 on Mon, 8 Jan

No, because I'm over the age where I'm liable to pay NI.

>A way forward would be for your employer to provide their insurance
>cover for when you're travelling on behalf of the company.

Hahahaha. In fact I'm not even sure they *have* any car insurance, in
the absence of any company cars. They've externalised all that cost to
employees.

>>> The alternative would be paying a call-out fee that some services
>>>offer that you could then claim back. I still think there could be a
>>>benefit in kind?

>> Good luck finding such services which can respond in time for you to
>>get to work even the same day. And it's not a benefit to me, because
>>I'd be happy to (eg) change a tyre myself. It's the employer who
>>*insists* I shouldn't do, so surely they should pay for it.
>
>My point is either the cost must be a direct expense or it's a benefit
>in kind. The general rule for allowed expenses

But they aren't paying any expenses, just requiring me to pay out of my
own pocket.

>is that any payment from your employer for you to carry out your work
>must only have incidental personal use.

Yes, if they gave me a lump sum to pay for that roadside cover, it would
also be available when I was driving on SD&P style trips. But they
aren't paying, so it's a moot point.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <df7opi51am31dmnu9...@4ax.com>, at 16:15:59 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 14:29:38 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>What is does actually say is this:
>>
>>"With LV= Car Insurance we define SD&P as including driving to a single
>>workplace, provided there are no business-related stops made during the
>>journey."

So don't do: Home-SingleWorkplace-OffSiteMeeting-Home. My wife used to
do that quite a lot, because part of her job description was organising
(and attending) off-site meetings for groups of social housing tenants
to have an opportunity to be consulted in person by members of the
housing department. Who of course would *also* be doing a triangular
trip like that.

>"We".
>
>That's a very important word. It means that LV are explicitly stating that
>this definition is specific to them. There is, therefore, no expectation
>that it will necessarily apply to other insurers.
>
>Historically, SD&P did not include commuting. It is becoming more common for
>it to do so. But it is still a long way from the norm. What is becoming more
>common is for insurers to simply no longer sell pure SD&P, and instead make
>SDP&C the basic level of cover.

But without it necessarily covering the drivers between home and the
station, if going to a meeting with a third party in London.

And what about volunteers, for example car park marshalls during Covid
vaccination sessions. Is driving to that, *commuting* or not?
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In message <l0323d...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<use...@andyburns.uk> writes

When I was working, as well as the usual commuting to and from my usual
place of work I occasionally needed to use my car to go to and from
other locations, I'm pretty sure that's the sort of thing my insurance
policy said. However, as such, ie using my car for company purposes, I
was also covered by the company's blanket insurance. This came in very
useful when a colleague and I were out in our cars on a job, he drove
firmly into the back of me - writing off both cars.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

[JNugent]

On 09/01/2024 09:23 am, Roland Perry wrote:

> JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:

>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Jan  2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>

[in response to:]

>>>>>>> They also separately recently introduced a new "Health and
>>>>>>> Safety"  element to the organisation's transport policy that if I
>>>>>>> were to  break down while undergoing a shuttle like that, I MUST
>>>>>>> NOT attempt  to fix it myself at the roadside, but sit there
>>>>>>> awaiting a  professional repair service such as AA/RAC.
>>>>>>> It did vaguely cross my mind that perhaps I should have put the
>>>>>>> cost  of obtaining the latter on my expenses, and now maybe even
>>>>>>> have put  this extra cost of basic insurance on as well. ie Not
>>>>>>> just the extra  cost of the 'business use' itself, but the cost
>>>>>>> of the policy not  being covered by GIPP.
>

[and:]

>>>>>> But that would hardly be an expense exclusively for work, unless
>>>>>> you  kept two policies?
>

[and:]

>>>>>  Yes it would because he'd (technically) need a "Fleet Policy"
>>>>> which  is  classed as a business expense.  Please feel free to ask
>>>>> HMRC if  you  don't believe me, but I can save you the time and
>>>>> trouble as I  have  asked them in the past.  (For the
>>>>> self-employed, they include  "breakdown  cover on a vehicle as an
>>>>> allowable expense here:
>>>>> https://www.gov.uk/expenses-if-youre-self-employed/travel)
>
>>>> I used to prefer to just claim the 45p a mile for business miles,
>>>> which would cover fuel and a proportion of insurance, road tax,
>>>> servicing, repairs and spares.
>
>>>  Which completely and utterly misses the point. The breakdown
>>> insurance was required *in case* I *were* ever to be assigned to
>>> a different workplace in accordance with the employment contract.
>>>  In almost six years it never happened. So zero x 45p/mile is ***ZERO***
>
>> So... what IS "the point"?
>
> That the company travel policy imposed a cost on me that I couldn't
> claim. Unless you think I could include it as a deductible expense on
> my self-assessment tax form, which I very much doubt.

That was not the "point" which I was addressing.

As I said:

>> The sub-thread is about how to account to HMRC for business travel
>> expenses incurred in use of a car.

> Amongst other things.

No. It was about how to account to HMRC for business travel expenses
incurred in use of a car and nothing else. The wider thread may well
have been about more things. I had made no comment on those.

It follows that *I* had not "missed the point", though there could
clearly be reason to suspect that someone else had.

On that wider point, though, the Treasury-approved rate of 45p a mile
for the first 10,000 miles of business travel in a private car does
cover all allowable expenses, which includes AA, RAC or similar membership.

It is a reasonable expense a prudent driver neither avoids nor resents,
whether or not his employer is telling him he has to have it.

In extremis, he can always decline to use his own car for business
purposes and ask to be provided with a rental car for each separate use.

JN (AA member for just on 52 years).

[JNugent]

How can a volunteer have a place of work ("volunteer" and "work" being
terms of art in that sentence)?

Of course, a volunteer may have a place of work as well. But the site at
which the volunteered actions are performed is not it. Or at least, not
on the days when he is not at his normal work.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 02:25:31 -0000, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 23:50:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...
>>
>> >> On 2024-01-08, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>> >>> My Certificate of Motor Insurance says:
>> >>>
>> >>> Use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes.
>> >>> EXCLUSIONS - The policy does not cover use for commuting, any business
>> >>> purpose, any purpose in connection with the motor trade, carriage of
>> >>> passengers or goods for hire or reward, or for hiring, racing,
>> >>> competitions, rallies, trials, pace-making or speed testing.
>> >>
>[snip]
>>
>> So does that mean that someone who has a SD&P policy and is commuting
>> to work is unknowingly committing a criminal offence ten times a week?
>> That seems a bit harsh.
>
>It's been noted that different insurers treat things in different ways.
>My SD&P policy would cover commuting automatically, but Todal's insurer
>apparently sees it as separate.

So does mine, although it doesn't affect the premium.

Mark

[The Todal]

On 08/01/2024 20:54, Fredxx wrote:

I think the LV page cited might have been badly drafted and you could
blame the web designer rather than the underwriters. The fact is, social
domestic and pleasure does not automatically include commuting (aka
travelling to and from work). Maybe it did in the past, for some motor
insurers, and maybe the need to make premiums more competitive has led
to a more inflexible definition nowadays.

See instead this page:

https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/existing-customers/claim/claim-considerations

quote:

Check your certificate of motor insurance to see what cover you have on
your policy. This is located under section 6 of the certificate. The
options for use are: Use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes
excluding commuting to work ; Use for social, domestic and pleasure
purposes including commuting to a single place of work, provided no
business visits are made on the way ; and Use for social, domestic and
pleasure purposes and also additional business use, both including and
excluding commercial travelling.
unquote

Or you could look at the relevant page for Admiral Insurance:

https://www.admiral.com/magazine/guides/car-insurance/which-class-of-use

quote

The class of use described as Social, Domestic and Pleasure covers the
drivers named on the policy for normal day to day driving. Shopping,
visiting friends or family and pleasure driving such as going to the
park or on holiday.

For Admiral, this doesn't include commuting to work, but some insurers
only offer a combined class of use called Social, Domestic, Pleasure and
Commuting. It’s best to check when you’re getting a quote to be sure of
the cover you’re getting.

[JNugent]

On 09/01/2024 02:40 pm, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi driver :-)

You can't.

Not unless you *are* a taxi-driver.

[Roland Perry]

In message <l056nn...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:23:37 on Tue, 9 Jan

I have only ever called out roadside assistance once in my lifetime, and
it was a really nice chap from RAC who took most of the day to arrive.
And all he could do was give me a tow to a garage, who then took a week
to fix the fault "anti-emissions computer says NO".

>In extremis, he can always decline to use his own car for business
>purposes and ask to be provided with a rental car for each separate use.

No, my quite recently-ex employer didn't have a scheme for that, and in
effect said "if you want to work for us you MUST have a car which is
suitably (both for driving and breakdowns) insured, at your expense"


The icing on the cake is they also had an over-subscribed car park at
HQ, so only about half the staff had an allocated space.

>JN (AA member for just on 52 years).
>
>

--
Roland Perry

[Simon Parker]

According to LV=, (and I know because I've asked them previously),
giving your partner an occasional lift to work or the station is
domestic use. However, if it is expected to happen regularly[1], it
should be declared to the insurer as they will probably want class 2
business use for both partners.

Regards

S.P.

[1] Note their use of the word "regularly" rather than "frequently". It
might be that the husband gives the wife a lift to the station when
she's in the office every Wednesday. This is a "regular" trip and
should be declared.

[Mark Goodge]

You can, and in fact you must, if you wish to become a taxi driver. Bearing
in mind that it's the vehicle which is insured, not the driver, most
licensing authorities have a rule that you have to have the appropriate
insurance in place before applying for a hackney or private hire licence. To
quote from my authority's licensing policy:

Before a licence to use a vehicle as a hackney carriage can be issued, the
applicant must have submitted all of the following:

* Completed application form
* A current MOT certificate issued within the previous 30 days.
* Valid insurance showing the vehicle is insured for use for hire and
reward for public hire or in accordance with a hackney carriage
licence.
[...]

https://www.worcsregservices.gov.uk/media/hvkh00hc/wdc-taxi-and-private-hire-licensing-policy-with-effect-01-08-2023.pdf

So the insurance comes first, before the licence. If the licence application
fails, for any reason, then the additional expense on the insurance will be
wasted. But that's not the council's problem.

Mark

[JNugent]

On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/01/2024 02:40 pm, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

>>> If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi driver :-)
>
>> You can't.
>> Not unless you *are* a taxi-driver.
>

> You can, and in fact you must, if you wish to become a taxi driver***. Bearing

> in mind that it's the vehicle which is insured, not the driver, most
> licensing authorities have a rule that you have to have the appropriate
> insurance in place before applying for a hackney or private hire licence.

I can't see how that can be true.

In general terms, because of double-shifting, about half of taxi-drivers
in E&W do not own the taxi they drive. It might be only 40%. It might be
as much as 60%. But it's a significant proportion.

You can't get insurance for a vehicle you don't own. And neither do you
have any responsibility for doing so.

> To quote from my authority's licensing policy:
>
> Before a licence to use a vehicle as a hackney carriage can be issued, the
> applicant must have submitted all of the following:
>
> * Completed application form
> * A current MOT certificate issued within the previous 30 days.
> * Valid insurance showing the vehicle is insured for use for hire and
> reward for public hire or in accordance with a hackney carriage
> licence.
> [...]

That is an application by the PROPRIETOR, not by a driver (see *** above).

>
> https://www.worcsregservices.gov.uk/media/hvkh00hc/wdc-taxi-and-private-hire-licensing-policy-with-effect-01-08-2023.pdf
>
> So the insurance comes first, before the licence.

For the *vehicle* and the *proprietor*, that's obviously true (though
the insurance conditions certainly include a requirement that any driver
must hold the appropriate licence from what used to be the Public
Carriage Office or from the district council outside London, with minor
exceptions for mechanics and others servicing, repairing and
administering the use of the vehicle.

> If the licence application
> fails, for any reason, then the additional expense on the insurance will be
> wasted. But that's not the council's problem.

Since it doesn't fall on a non-proprietor driver, that doesn't matter at
all. Or not as much as you are claiming. Think about it.

The person liable for payment of the insurance premiums is the
proprietor of the taxi who himself may not even have a driving licence,
let alone a taxi-driver's licence, Indeed, the proprietor can even be a
limited company (and often is).

NB: None of the above relates to the pirate trade, euphemistically
referred to as "private hire". I make no comment on that because the
entanglement of personal versus business use of the vehicle (which a
driver licence applicant may already be using as his private car) is
fairly obvious and is completely different from the legitimate licenced
taxi industry.

[JNugent]

You may not have thought of it this way... but you've been lucky.

Would you complain about never having been burgled despite paying for
household contents insurance every year?

>> In extremis, he can always decline to use his own car for business
>> purposes and ask to be provided with a rental car for each separate use.
>
> No, my quite recently-ex employer didn't have a scheme for that, and in
> effect said "if you want to work for us you MUST have a car which is
> suitably (both for driving and breakdowns) insured, at your expense"
>

Did the employer pay you mileage-based travel expenses for the business
use of your car?

> The icing on the cake is they also had an over-subscribed car park at
> HQ, so only about half the staff had an allocated space.

Been there. Done that.

The best place at which I ever worked for getting a car-park space (in a
secure underground car-park) was, believe it or not, in London WC2. It
was just getting from home to and from there that was the fly in that
particular ointment.

[Sam Plusnet]

Yesterday I followed a car which had a notice in the rear window saying
"Nan's Taxi".

Some people just don't think this stuff through.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:07:27 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:

>On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2024 02:40 pm, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>
>>>> If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi driver :-)
>>
>>> You can't.
>>> Not unless you *are* a taxi-driver.
>>
>> You can, and in fact you must, if you wish to become a taxi driver***. Bearing
>> in mind that it's the vehicle which is insured, not the driver, most
>> licensing authorities have a rule that you have to have the appropriate
>> insurance in place before applying for a hackney or private hire licence.
>
>I can't see how that can be true.
>
>In general terms, because of double-shifting, about half of taxi-drivers
>in E&W do not own the taxi they drive. It might be only 40%. It might be
>as much as 60%. But it's a significant proportion.
>
>You can't get insurance for a vehicle you don't own. And neither do you
>have any responsibility for doing so.

But if you don't own the vehicle you don't insure it anyway. The comment
above related to someone using their own car in order to provide a taxi
service. In which case, it is entirely correct to say that it should be
insured as a taxi, and if the person wants it to be licensed as a taxi then
they will neeed to do that first before applying for the licence.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

"Taxi" and "Taxi Driver" are not protected titles. So anyone can call
themselves a taxi driver, and call their car a taxi, if they want.

What they can't do, without being licensed and insured, is charge anyone to
ride in it.

Of course, if we're going to be pedantic, then the cars labelled "Dad's
taxi" etc are not actually acting as taxis anyway, since they don't drive
around the streets waiting for a family member to flag them down. What
they're doing is more akin to private hire, whereby they only make
pre-booked trips or respond to phone calls (or SMS/FBM/WhatsApp messages)
booking a ride home :-)

Mark

[JNugent]

On 10/01/2024 08:37 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

> Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> Not unless you *are* a taxi-driver.
>
>> Yesterday I followed a car which had a notice in the rear window saying
>> "Nan's Taxi".
>> Some people just don't think this stuff through.
>
> "Taxi" and "Taxi Driver" are not protected titles. So anyone can call
> themselves a taxi driver, and call their car a taxi, if they want.

Not if they are doing so with signage or livery displayed to mark the
vehicle as for immediate hire.

>
> What they can't do, without being licensed and insured, is charge anyone to
> ride in it.

Well, duh!

[Roland Perry]

In message <l07q5f...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:07:27 on Wed, 10

Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:

>On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2024 02:40 pm, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>
>>>> If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi driver :-)
>>
>>> You can't.
>>> Not unless you *are* a taxi-driver.

>> You can, and in fact you must, if you wish to become a taxi
>>driver***. Bearing
>> in mind that it's the vehicle which is insured, not the driver, most
>> licensing authorities have a rule that you have to have the appropriate
>> insurance in place before applying for a hackney or private hire licence.
>
>I can't see how that can be true.
>
>In general terms, because of double-shifting, about half of
>taxi-drivers in E&W do not own the taxi they drive. It might be only
>40%. It might be as much as 60%. But it's a significant proportion.
>
>You can't get insurance for a vehicle you don't own.

Don't be ridiculous. Apart from the millions of ordinary cars owned by
leasing companies, you can get insurance for a car owned by a friend
who is willing to loan it to you.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l077hkF...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:49:39 on Wed, 10

Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 09/01/2024 09:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <l04dss...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:19:40 on Tue, 9
>>Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> There's "Social, Domestic and Pleasure", with an invisible "only" on
>>>the end, which some insurers abbreviate as "Social".
>>>
>>> This cover does not include travelling to and from work, nor for
>>>that matter driving to a train station and leaving the car in the
>>>car park there and catching a train to work as that too is classed
>>>as "Commuting".

>> I wonder what the situation is if you give your partner a lift to
>>the station, then return home (either because *you* work from home,
>>are retired, or whatever).
>
>According to LV=, (and I know because I've asked them previously),
>giving your partner an occasional lift to work or the station is
>domestic use. However, if it is expected to happen regularly[1],

I did it every working day for a year.

>it should be declared to the insurer as they will probably want class 2
>business use for both partners.

Although I didn't declare that specific usage, we both did have that
insurance as a hangover from previous working patterns.

>Regards
>
>S.P.
>
>[1] Note their use of the word "regularly" rather than "frequently". It
>might be that the husband gives the wife a lift to the station when
>she's in the office every Wednesday. This is a "regular" trip and
>should be declared.
>

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l07pcg...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:54:08 on Wed, 10

Although as an engineer I'm very much aware of impending hiccups, to get
them fixed before the car breaks down.

>Would you complain about never having been burgled despite paying for
>household contents insurance every year?
>
>>> In extremis, he can always decline to use his own car for business
>>>purposes and ask to be provided with a rental car for each separate use.
>> No, my quite recently-ex employer didn't have a scheme for that, and
>>in effect said "if you want to work for us you MUST have a car which
>>is suitably (both for driving and breakdowns) insured, at your expense"
>>
>Did the employer pay you mileage-based travel expenses for the business
>use of your car?

They would have done, if they ever required me to. But in six years they
didn't triggered it.

>> The icing on the cake is they also had an over-subscribed car park at
>>HQ, so only about half the staff had an allocated space.
>
>Been there. Done that.

One place I worked had a staff car park designed for about twenty, but
every day was crammed with forty. There was a rule that if blocked in
(which almost everyone was) we could demand the keys for the company car
nearest the road, and use that instead of our own.
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

On 11/01/2024 07:14 am, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <l07q5f...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:07:27 on Wed, 10
> Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>> On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2024 02:40 pm, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>
>>>>> If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi driver :-)
>>>
>>>> You can't.
>>>> Not unless you *are* a taxi-driver.
>
>>>  You can, and in fact you must, if you wish to become a taxi
>>> driver***. Bearing
>>> in mind that it's the vehicle which is insured, not the driver, most
>>> licensing authorities have a rule that you have to have the appropriate
>>> insurance in place before applying for a hackney or private hire
>>> licence.
>>
>> I can't see how that can be true.
>>
>> In general terms, because of double-shifting, about half of
>> taxi-drivers in E&W do not own the taxi they drive. It might be only
>> 40%. It might be as much as 60%. But it's a significant proportion.
>>
>> You can't get insurance for a vehicle you don't own.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. Apart from the millions of ordinary cars owned by
> leasing companies, you can get insurance for a car owned by a friend
> who is willing to loan it to you.

Why, and for what possible LAWFUL reason, would the proprietor of a
licenced taxi *lend* it to a friend who was not a licenced taxi driver?

Think carefully. Remember that the hackney Road Tax rate is lower than
for a car of equivalent power and kerbside weight and that the vehicle
may not be used for SD&P purposes unless taxed "Private and Hackney".

>> And neither do you have any responsibility for doing so.
>
>>> To quote from my authority's licensing policy:
>>>     Before a licence to use a vehicle as a hackney carriage can be
>>> issued, the
>>>    applicant must have submitted all of the following:
>>>         * Completed application form
>>>     * A current MOT certificate issued within the previous 30 days.

I'd forgotten about that one: for authorities that have their own
testing facilities (certainly including London and Liverpool and other
larger metropolitan areas) there is no legal requirement for a taxi to
have an MOT test. The system for testing long pre-dates the "Ten Year
Test" instigated in 1960 and was recognised within the legislation
requiring an MOT test.

[JNugent]

So what was the problem?

What level of authority were they exercising when "requiring" you to be
an AA / RAC member?

>
>>> The icing on the cake is they also had an over-subscribed car park at
>>> HQ, so only about half the staff had an allocated space.
>>
>> Been there. Done that.
>
> One place I worked had a staff car park designed for about twenty, but
> every day was crammed with forty. There was a rule that if blocked in
> (which almost everyone was) we could demand the keys for the company car
> nearest the road, and use that instead of our own.

What? To go home for the night in?

[Roland Perry]

In message <l09stt...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11

That they required me to have the roadside assistance policy, at my own
expense.

>What level of authority were they exercising when "requiring" you to be
>an AA / RAC member?

Writing it in the corporate H&S policy, which I was also contractually
required to comply with.

>>
>>>> The icing on the cake is they also had an over-subscribed car park
>>>>at HQ, so only about half the staff had an allocated space.
>>>
>>> Been there. Done that.

>> One place I worked had a staff car park designed for about twenty,
>>but every day was crammed with forty. There was a rule that if
>>blocked in (which almost everyone was) we could demand the keys for
>>the company car nearest the road, and use that instead of our own.
>
>What? To go home for the night in?

Usually to run some business errand, for example taking something which
needed shipping to the courier depot, or something to the bank.

But it was long enough ago that we also had to take potential customers
out to lunch abut once a week on average, and protocol dictated that was
using our transport, not theirs.

Something in that employer's company car policy said we MUST have at
least a 4-door car (so if there were two customers to take to lunch
they didn't have the indignity of crawling into the back seat). But
mysteriously I managed to wangle a 3-door (now a classic).

<https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/october-
1979/46/the-talbot-sunbeam-lotus/>

People only borrowed that once, coming back ashen-faced. But I knew how
to steer it - a combination of front half with the steering wheel
(opposite lock) and back end with the accelerator.

10yrs later my wife's employer had a similar HR policy but didn't
provide company cars, so it was at our expense. And they also had a
clause saying the car we self-provided MUST NOT be more than 5yrs
old - because that would reflect badly on the company.

As I tended to buy 3yr old ex-company cars (at the local auction) this
meant we had to churn them every two years. I got the last laugh because
we generally had BMW 325's which were a bit lively too, and she spun one
almost but not quite into the ditch.

Classic cars weren't quite so much a thing then, but it might have been
interesting to tweak their tail and say "What's wrong with a vintage
Rolls Royce".
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:05:19 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:

>>> On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:

>>>> To quote from my authority's licensing policy:
>>>>     Before a licence to use a vehicle as a hackney carriage can be
>>>> issued, the
>>>>    applicant must have submitted all of the following:
>>>>         * Completed application form
>>>>     * A current MOT certificate issued within the previous 30 days.
>
>I'd forgotten about that one: for authorities that have their own
>testing facilities (certainly including London and Liverpool and other
>larger metropolitan areas) there is no legal requirement for a taxi to
>have an MOT test. The system for testing long pre-dates the "Ten Year
>Test" instigated in 1960 and was recognised within the legislation
>requiring an MOT test.

They still need an MOT test certificate. Otherwise it will show up on the
PNC and DVLA as not being street-legal. The next time you happen to spot a
taxi, make a note of the registration and plug it in here:

https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/

Where the taxi vehicle test is carried out either by an in-house garage or
authorised third-party, the taxi test includes all the elements necessary
for the MOT test. So passing the taxi test automatically generates an MOT
certificate as well as the local authority's certificate.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <l09sqv...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:05:19 on Thu, 11

Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>On 11/01/2024 07:14 am, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <l07q5f...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:07:27 on Wed, 10
>>Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>>> On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 09/01/2024 02:40 pm, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi driver :-)
>>>>
>>>>> You can't.
>>>>> Not unless you *are* a taxi-driver.
>>
>>>>  You can, and in fact you must, if you wish to become a taxi
>>>>driver***. Bearing in mind that it's the vehicle which is insured,
>>>>not the driver, most licensing authorities have a rule that you
>>>>have to have the appropriate insurance in place before applying for
>>>>a hackney or private hire licence.
>>>
>>> I can't see how that can be true.
>>>
>>> In general terms, because of double-shifting, about half of
>>>taxi-drivers in E&W do not own the taxi they drive. It might be only

>>>It might be as much as 60%. But it's a significant proportion.
>>>
>>> You can't get insurance for a vehicle you don't own.

>> Don't be ridiculous. Apart from the millions of ordinary cars owned
>>by leasing companies, you can get insurance for a car owned by a
>>friend who is willing to loan it to you.
>
>Why, and for what possible LAWFUL reason, would the proprietor of a
>licenced taxi *lend* it to a friend who was not a licenced taxi driver?

Oh, so what you meant to write was "You can't get insurance for a *taxi*
you don't own". Do try harder to be more precise.

>Think carefully. Remember that the hackney Road Tax rate is lower than
>for a car of equivalent power and kerbside weight and that the vehicle
>may not be used for SD&P purposes unless taxed "Private and Hackney".

As it happens I have a friendly taxi driver, and I can assure you he
uses his cars for his own SD&P as well as carrying paying customers.

I'm not sure why I would especially want to borrow *his* car, but it's
not completely out of the question. Sometimes he becomes "man with a
van" for the day and doesn't need the car.

--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

On 11/01/2024 04:47 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:05:19 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>>>>> To quote from my authority's licensing policy:
>>>>>     Before a licence to use a vehicle as a hackney carriage can be
>>>>> issued, the
>>>>>    applicant must have submitted all of the following:
>>>>>         * Completed application form
>>>>>     * A current MOT certificate issued within the previous 30 days.
>>
>> I'd forgotten about that one: for authorities that have their own
>> testing facilities (certainly including London and Liverpool and other
>> larger metropolitan areas) there is no legal requirement for a taxi to
>> have an MOT test. The system for testing long pre-dates the "Ten Year
>> Test" instigated in 1960 and was recognised within the legislation
>> requiring an MOT test.
>
> They still need an MOT test certificate. Otherwise it will show up on the
> PNC and DVLA as not being street-legal. The next time you happen to spot a
> taxi, make a note of the registration and plug it in here:
>
> https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/

The 1960 legislation which brought in the MOT test specifically exempted
licenced taxis (licenced by the PCO and various competent metropolitan
authorities, that is).

When was it changed?

>
> Where the taxi vehicle test is carried out either by an in-house garage or
> authorised third-party, the taxi test includes all the elements necessary
> for the MOT test. So passing the taxi test automatically generates an MOT
> certificate as well as the local authority's certificate.

Crazy. A taxi-inspection is far more stringent than an MOT test and
always has been, right back to the days of the Hansom cab.

[JNugent]

But why, if you were not using the car on (their) business?

>
>> What level of authority were they exercising when "requiring" you to be
>> an AA / RAC member?
>
> Writing it in the corporate H&S policy, which I was also contractually
> required to comply with.
>

There is such a thing as an unfair contract.

>>>
>>>>> The icing on the cake is they also had an over-subscribed car park
>>>>> at HQ, so only about half the staff had an allocated space.
>>>>
>>>> Been there. Done that.
>
>>> One place I worked had a staff car park designed for about twenty,
>>> but every day was crammed with forty. There was a rule that if
>>> blocked in (which almost everyone was) we could demand the keys for
>>> the company car nearest the road, and use that instead of our own.
>>
>> What? To go home for the night in?
>
> Usually to run some business errand, for example taking something which
> needed shipping to the courier depot, or something to the bank.

Why do you need personal membership of the AA for that?

>
> But it was long enough ago that we also had to take potential customers
> out to lunch abut once a week on average, and protocol dictated that was
> using our transport, not theirs.
>
> Something in that employer's company car policy said we MUST have at
> least a 4-door car (so if there were two customers to take to lunch
> they didn't have the indignity of crawling into the back seat). But
> mysteriously I managed to wangle a 3-door (now a classic).
>
> <https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/october-
> 1979/46/the-talbot-sunbeam-lotus/>
>
> People only borrowed that once, coming back ashen-faced. But I knew how
> to steer it - a combination of front half with the steering wheel
> (opposite lock) and back end with the accelerator.
>
> 10yrs later my wife's employer had a similar HR policy but didn't
> provide company cars, so it was at our expense. And they also had a
> clause saying the car we self-provided MUST NOT be more than 5yrs
> old - because that would reflect badly on the company.

One wonders why you stayed there. All those imposed requirements and
they never pay you a penny for car expenses.

[JNugent]

That was the sole context. There was no need to keep repeating it.

>
>> Think carefully. Remember that the hackney Road Tax rate is lower than
>> for a car of equivalent power and kerbside weight and that the vehicle
>> may not be used for SD&P purposes unless taxed "Private and Hackney".
>
> As it happens I have a friendly taxi driver, and I can assure you he
> uses his cars for his own SD&P as well as carrying paying customers.

In that case, his vehicle is Road Taxed in either the "private" class or
in the "private and hackney" class (there's no financial advantage in
the second one).

>
> I'm not sure why I would especially want to borrow *his* car, but it's
> not completely out of the question. Sometimes he becomes "man with a
> van" for the day and doesn't need the car.

There are rules about who may drive a licenced taxi with a licenced taxi
insurance policy. In brief, only a licenced (taxi) driver, or someone
concerned with the maintenance and repair of the vehicle.That's a
licencing issue, not an insurance issue.

Has he ever offered you the loan of his licenced taxi?

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:39:32 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:

>On 11/01/2024 04:47 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> They still need an MOT test certificate. Otherwise it will show up on the
>> PNC and DVLA as not being street-legal. The next time you happen to spot a
>> taxi, make a note of the registration and plug it in here:
>>
>> https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/
>
>The 1960 legislation which brought in the MOT test specifically exempted
>licenced taxis (licenced by the PCO and various competent metropolitan
>authorities, that is).
>
>When was it changed?

I don't know, offhand. But there's no such exemption in current legislation.
The current legislation actually goes the other way, and makes more
stringent requirements for test certificates if the vehicle is being used as
a taxi. Normally, a car doesn't need an MOT until it's three years old. A
taxi needs one once it's one year old.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/47

>> Where the taxi vehicle test is carried out either by an in-house garage or
>> authorised third-party, the taxi test includes all the elements necessary
>> for the MOT test. So passing the taxi test automatically generates an MOT
>> certificate as well as the local authority's certificate.
>
>Crazy. A taxi-inspection is far more stringent than an MOT test and
>always has been, right back to the days of the Hansom cab.

That's my point. It doesn't need a separate MOT test, because the taxi test
includes the MOT test.

Mark

[JNugent]

On 12/01/2024 01:29 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:39:32 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/2024 04:47 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> They still need an MOT test certificate. Otherwise it will show up on the
>>> PNC and DVLA as not being street-legal. The next time you happen to spot a
>>> taxi, make a note of the registration and plug it in here:
>>>
>>> https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/
>>
>> The 1960 legislation which brought in the MOT test specifically exempted
>> licenced taxis (licenced by the PCO and various competent metropolitan
>> authorities, that is).
>>
>> When was it changed?
>
> I don't know, offhand. But there's no such exemption in current legislation.
> The current legislation actually goes the other way, and makes more
> stringent requirements for test certificates if the vehicle is being used as
> a taxi. Normally, a car doesn't need an MOT until it's three years old. A
> taxi needs one once it's one year old.

But not when presented as a new vehicle?

>
> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/47
>
>>> Where the taxi vehicle test is carried out either by an in-house garage or
>>> authorised third-party, the taxi test includes all the elements necessary
>>> for the MOT test. So passing the taxi test automatically generates an MOT
>>> certificate as well as the local authority's certificate.
>>
>> Crazy. A taxi-inspection is far more stringent than an MOT test and
>> always has been, right back to the days of the Hansom cab.
>
> That's my point. It doesn't need a separate MOT test, because the taxi test
> includes the MOT test.

Some local authorities never had their own testing facilities and DID
rely upon the MOT test. Has that changed?

[Roland Perry]

In message <l0bj5s...@mid.individual.net>, at 01:32:44 on Fri, 12 Jan

Because they insisted I *might* one day be using the car on their
business, so had to have it suitably insured JUST IN CASE.

>>> What level of authority were they exercising when "requiring" you to
>>>be an AA / RAC member?

>> Writing it in the corporate H&S policy, which I was also
>>contractually required to comply with.
>>
>There is such a thing as an unfair contract.

Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?

Cites please.

>>>>>> The icing on the cake is they also had an over-subscribed car park
>>>>>> at HQ, so only about half the staff had an allocated space.
>>>>>
>>>>> Been there. Done that.
>>
>>>> One place I worked had a staff car park designed for about
>>>>twenty, but every day was crammed with forty. There was a rule
>>>>that if blocked in (which almost everyone was) we could demand the
>>>>keys for the company car nearest the road, and use that instead of our own.
>>>
>>> What? To go home for the night in?

>> Usually to run some business errand, for example taking something
>>which needed shipping to the courier depot, or something to the bank.
>
>Why do you need personal membership of the AA for that?

I didn't, two different employments decades apart. Do TRY TO KEEP UP!!!

>> But it was long enough ago that we also had to take potential
>>customers out to lunch abut once a week on average, and protocol
>>dictated that was using our transport, not theirs.

>> Something in that employer's company car policy said we MUST have at
>> least a 4-door car (so if there were two customers to take to lunch
>> they didn't have the indignity of crawling into the back seat). But
>> mysteriously I managed to wangle a 3-door (now a classic).

>> <https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/october-
>> 1979/46/the-talbot-sunbeam-lotus/>

>> People only borrowed that once, coming back ashen-faced. But I knew
>>how to steer it - a combination of front half with the steering wheel
>>(opposite lock) and back end with the accelerator.

>> 10yrs later my wife's employer had a similar HR policy but didn't
>> provide company cars, so it was at our expense. And they also had a
>> clause saying the car we self-provided MUST NOT be more than 5yrs
>> old - because that would reflect badly on the company.
>
>One wonders why you stayed there. All those imposed requirements and
>they never pay you a penny for car expenses.

Different employments (and different employees) decades apart DO TRY TO
KEEP UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l0bjpv...@mid.individual.net>, at 01:43:26 on Fri, 12 Jan

2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>On 11/01/2024 05:04 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <l09sqv...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:05:19 on Thu, 11
>>Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>>> On 11/01/2024 07:14 am, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <l07q5f...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:07:27 on Wed,
>>>>10 Jan 2024, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/01/2024 02:40 pm, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi driver :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't.
>>>>>>> Not unless you *are* a taxi-driver.
>>>>
>>>>>>  You can, and in fact you must, if you wish to become a taxi
>>>>>>driver***. Bearing  in mind that it's the vehicle which is
>>>>>>insured, not the driver, most  licensing authorities have a rule
>>>>>>that you have to have the appropriate  insurance in place before
>>>>>>applying for a hackney or private hire  licence.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't see how that can be true.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general terms, because of double-shifting, about half of
>>>>>taxi-drivers in E&W do not own the taxi they drive. It might be

>>>>>might be as much as 60%. But it's a significant proportion.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't get insurance for a vehicle you don't own.
>>
>>>>  Don't be ridiculous. Apart from the millions of ordinary cars
>>>>owned by  leasing companies, you can get insurance for a car owned
>>>>by a friend  who is willing to loan it to you.
>>>
>>> Why, and for what possible LAWFUL reason, would the proprietor of a
>>>licenced taxi *lend* it to a friend who was not a licenced taxi driver?
>> Oh, so what you meant to write was "You can't get insurance for a
>>*taxi* you don't own". Do try harder to be more precise.
>
>That was the sole context. There was no need to keep repeating it.

Your deliberate misinterpretation is becoming beyond tedious.

>>> Think carefully. Remember that the hackney Road Tax rate is lower
>>>than for a car of equivalent power and kerbside weight and that the
>>>vehicle may not be used for SD&P purposes unless taxed "Private and
>>>Hackney".

>> As it happens I have a friendly taxi driver, and I can assure you he
>>uses his cars for his own SD&P as well as carrying paying customers.
>
>In that case, his vehicle is Road Taxed in either the "private" class
>or in the "private and hackney" class (there's no financial advantage
>in the second one).

>> I'm not sure why I would especially want to borrow *his* car, but
>>it's not completely out of the question. Sometimes he becomes "man
>>with a van" for the day and doesn't need the car.
>
>There are rules about who may drive a licenced taxi with a licenced
>taxi insurance policy. In brief, only a licenced (taxi) driver, or
>someone concerned with the maintenance and repair of the vehicle.That's
>a licencing issue, not an insurance issue.
>
>Has he ever offered you the loan of his licenced taxi?

Given your track record for deliberate misinterpretation, I'll pass on
answering this cross-examination.
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

On 12/01/2024 04:48 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

> JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>> JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry wrote:

>>>>> JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Goodge wrote:

>>>>>>> JNugent <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi driver :-)
>
>>>>>>>> You can't.
>>>>>>>> Not unless you *are* a taxi-driver.
>
>>>>>>>  You can, and in fact you must, if you wish to become a taxi
>>>>>>> driver***. Bearing  in mind that it's the vehicle which is
>>>>>>> insured,  not the driver, most  licensing authorities have a rule
>>>>>>> that you  have to have the appropriate  insurance in place before
>>>>>>> applying  for a hackney or private hire  licence.
>
>>>>>> I can't see how that can be true.
>>>>>> In general terms, because of double-shifting, about half of
>>>>>> taxi-drivers in E&W do not own the taxi they drive. It might be
>>>>>> might be as much as 60%. But it's a significant proportion.
>
>>>>>> You can't get insurance for a vehicle you don't own.
>
>>>>>  Don't be ridiculous. Apart from the millions of ordinary cars
>>>>> owned  by  leasing companies, you can get insurance for a car owned
>>>>> by a  friend  who is willing to loan it to you.
>
>>>> Why, and for what possible LAWFUL reason, would the proprietor of a
>>>> licenced taxi *lend* it to a friend who was not a licenced taxi driver?

>>>  Oh, so what you meant to write was "You can't get insurance for a
>>> *taxi*  you don't own". Do try harder to be more precise.
>
>> That was the sole context. There was no need to keep repeating it.
>
> Your deliberate misinterpretation is becoming beyond tedious.

Your recent diversion away from the subject of taxis (which is what was
being discussed, not secondhand Ford Fusions) was the misinterpretation
(unless there's a better word for it).

Cars are one thing (I have one on very long-term loan and meet all
outgoings on it), but you have not explained why a business proprietor
would lend an expensive piece of capital equipment (capable of earning
its own keep at any and every time of the day and night, 365 days a
year) to a friend rather than putting it to work. You have not explained
what lawful use such a friend (not being a licenced taxi-driver for the
same licencing area) would be thinking of making of the taxi.

>
>>>> Think carefully. Remember that the hackney Road Tax rate is lower
>>>> than  for a car of equivalent power and kerbside weight and that the
>>>> vehicle  may not be used for SD&P purposes unless taxed "Private and
>>>> Hackney".
>
>>>  As it happens I have a friendly taxi driver, and I can assure you he
>>> uses his cars for his own SD&P as well as carrying paying customers.
>
>> In that case, his vehicle is Road Taxed in either the "private" class
>> or in the "private and hackney" class (there's no financial advantage
>> in the second one).
>
>>>  I'm not sure why I would especially want to borrow *his* car, but
>>> it's  not completely out of the question. Sometimes he becomes "man
>>> with a  van" for the day and doesn't need the car.
>
>> There are rules about who may drive a licenced taxi with a licenced
>> taxi insurance policy. In brief, only a licenced (taxi) driver, or
>> someone concerned with the maintenance and repair of the

>> vehicle. That's a licencing issue, not an insurance issue.

>
>> Has he ever offered you the loan of his licenced taxi?
>
> Given your track record for deliberate misinterpretation, I'll pass on
> answering this cross-examination.

I have misinterpreted nothing. I have been scrupulously sticking to the
point, which was all about taxis.