I believe that motor insurers are not allowed to offer lower rates to
new customers than they would offer to existing customers
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?
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.
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?
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?
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 ..
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 18:23:47 +0000, Andy Burns wrote...
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 ..
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.
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.
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?
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.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 17:23:52 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Apologies to anyone who thinks this is off topic. I think it's aI was with Tesco for several years. They treated me well when I needed
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.
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.
On 05-Jan-24 21:13, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 04/01/2024 17:23, The Todal wrote:Does your broker examine the fine details of what each insurance
....
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.
actually covers and (more importantly) what it limits or leaves out?
That's something those comparison websites seem to ignore.
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?
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.
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4 Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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.
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.
I'm in the third year on the multi-car with the same insurer (LV=).
On 05/01/2024 00:57, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 18:23:47 +0000, Andy Burns wrote...
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 ..
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.
The insurer has to report to the FCA that you've complained and the FCA
can (and do!) investigate if they feel it necessary.
On 07/01/2024 13:40, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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.
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)
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. :-)
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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,
On 07/01/2024 19:49, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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,
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
On 07/01/2024 13:40, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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.
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)
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.
On 07/01/2024 08:03 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/01/2024 13:40, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Far less messing about.
If you're self-employed you can't do that. Happy to be proven wrong.
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.
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>
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.
On 07/01/2024 21:35, Fredxx wrote:
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.
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.
On 07/01/2024 21:35, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/01/2024 20:03, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/01/2024 13:40, Fredxx wrote:
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 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 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
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.)
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".
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.
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.
On 07/01/2024 22:41, JNugent wrote:
On 07/01/2024 08:03 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/01/2024 13:40, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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.
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.
Far less messing about.
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.
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. :-)
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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.
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?
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.
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.
On 7 Jan 2024 at 21:29:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 07/01/2024 19:49, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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,
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
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.
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.
On 07/01/2024 19:49, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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,
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
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.
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!
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.
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:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
Generally, it does.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 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.
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.
In message <une9kc$13a4b$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:40:29 on Sun, 7 Jan
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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.
But that would hardly be an expense exclusively for work, unless you
kept two policies?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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,
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.
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.
On 2024-01-08, The Todal <the_todal@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?
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 14:29:38 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@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
On 08/01/2024 20:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-01-08, The Todal <the_todal@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?
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.
In message <l00nljFth8aU3@mid.individual.net>, at 22:41:55 on Sun, 7 Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@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***
On 2024-01-08, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 08/01/2024 20:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-01-08, The Todal <the_todal@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?
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.
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.
[snip]On 2024-01-08, The Todal <the_todal@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.
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.
On 08/01/2024 00:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Jan 2024 at 21:29:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 07/01/2024 19:49, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:Generally, it does. For example:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu, 4 >>>>> Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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, >>>
"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-definit >>>ion-of-social-domestic-and-pleasure-including-commuting
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-a >>nd-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.
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.
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".
On 08/01/2024 06:14 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l00nljFth8aU3@mid.individual.net>, at 22:41:55 on Sun, 7
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@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***
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.
On 08/01/2024 18:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <une9kc$13a4b$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:40:29 on Sun, 7 Jan
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
On 07/01/2024 12:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu,
4 Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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.
But that would hardly be an expense exclusively for work, unless you >>>kept two policies?
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 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.
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 14:29:38 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@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.
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.
In message <l04dssFgb5vU8@mid.individual.net>, at 08:19:40 on Tue, 9 Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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).
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@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***
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.
The sub-thread is about how to account to HMRC for business travel
expenses incurred in use of a car.
Amongst other things.
In message <df7opi51am31dmnu96ovm0kmjqdmq1db80@4ax.com>, at 16:15:59 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 14:29:38 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@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?
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 23:50:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...
[snip]
On 2024-01-08, The Todal <the_todal@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.
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.
On 08/01/2024 19:25, The Todal wrote:
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:Generally, it does. For example:
In message <kvom67Fgb5vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:27:33 on Thu,
4 Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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, >>>
"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.
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.
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:47:08 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l04dssFgb5vU8@mid.individual.net>, at 08:19:40 on Tue, 9 Jan
2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
There's "Social, Domestic and Pleasure", with an invisible "only" onI wonder what the situation is if you give your partner a lift to the
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". >>
station, then return home (either because *you* work from home, are
retired, or whatever).
If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi driver :-)
On 09/01/2024 09:23 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
[and:]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?
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 breakdownSo... what IS "the point"?
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*** >>
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).
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.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@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.
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.
In message <l056nnFp178U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:23:37 on Tue, 9 Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2024 09:23 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
[and:]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?
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.
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).
On 09/01/2024 02:40 pm, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:47:08 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l04dssFgb5vU8@mid.individual.net>, at 08:19:40 on Tue, 9 Jan >>> 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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).
If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi driver :-)
You can't.
Not unless you *are* a taxi-driver.
On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@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.
On 10-Jan-24 0:03, 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.
Sam Plusnet <not@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.
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 :-)
On 09/01/2024 09:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l04dssFgb5vU8@mid.individual.net>, at 08:19:40 on Tue, 9
Jan 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@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],
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.
On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@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.
On 10/01/2024 06:45 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l056nnFp178U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:23:37 on Tue, 9
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2024 09:23 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@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.
I have only ever called out roadside assistance once in my lifetime,[and:]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?
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.
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".
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?
Did the employer pay you mileage-based travel expenses for the businessIn 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"
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.
In message <l07q5fF92v7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:07:27 on Wed, 10
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@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.
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.
In message <l07pcgF8v40U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:54:08 on Wed, 10
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 10/01/2024 06:45 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l056nnFp178U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:23:37 on Tue, 9
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2024 09:23 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@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.
I have only ever called out roadside assistance once in my lifetime,[and:]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?
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.
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".
You may not have thought of it this way... but you've been lucky.
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?
Did the employer pay you mileage-based travel expenses for theIn extremis, he can always decline to use his own car for businessNo, my quite recently-ex employer didn't have a scheme for that, and
purposes and ask to be provided with a rental car for each separate
use.
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" >>>
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.
On 11/01/2024 07:10 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l07pcgF8v40U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:54:08 on Wed, 10
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 10/01/2024 06:45 am, Roland Perry wrote:Although as an engineer I'm very much aware of impending hiccups, to
In message <l056nnFp178U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:23:37 on Tue,
9 Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2024 09:23 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@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.
I have only ever called out roadside assistance once in my[and:]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?
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.
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".
You may not have thought of it this way... but you've been lucky.
get them fixed before the car breaks down.
Would you complain about never having been burgled despite payingThey would have done, if they ever required me to. But in six years
for household contents insurance every year?
Did the employer pay you mileage-based travel expenses for theIn 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"
business use of your car?
they didn't triggered it.
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?
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.
On 11/01/2024 07:14 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l07q5fF92v7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:07:27 on Wed, 10
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@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?
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".
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:05:19 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
I'd forgotten about that one: for authorities that have their ownTo 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. >>
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.
In message <l09sqvFlcfnU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:05:19 on Thu, 11
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 11/01/2024 07:14 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l07q5fF92v7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:07:27 on Wed, 10
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@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.
In message <l09sttFlcfnU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 11/01/2024 07:10 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l07pcgF8v40U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:54:08 on Wed, 10
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 10/01/2024 06:45 am, Roland Perry wrote:Although as an engineer I'm very much aware of impending hiccups, to
In message <l056nnFp178U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:23:37 on Tue,
9 Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2024 09:23 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@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.
I have only ever called out roadside assistance once in my[and:]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?
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.
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".
You may not have thought of it this way... but you've been lucky.
get them fixed before the car breaks down.
Would you complain about never having been burgled despite payingThey would have done, if they ever required me to. But in six years
for household contents insurance every year?
Did the employer pay you mileage-based travel expenses for theIn 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"
business use of your car?
they didn't triggered it.
So what was the problem?
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".
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?
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.
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:39:32 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@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.
On 11/01/2024 03:09 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l09sttFlcfnU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 11/01/2024 07:10 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l07pcgF8v40U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:54:08 on Wed, 10
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 10/01/2024 06:45 am, Roland Perry wrote:Although as an engineer I'm very much aware of impending hiccups, to >>>> get them fixed before the car breaks down.
In message <l056nnFp178U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:23:37 on Tue, >>>>>> 9 Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2024 09:23 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@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.
I have only ever called out roadside assistance once in my[and:]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?
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: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.
https://www.gov.uk/expenses-if-youre-self-employed/travel) >>>>>>>>
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.
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".
You may not have thought of it this way... but you've been lucky.
Would you complain about never having been burgled despite payingThey would have done, if they ever required me to. But in six years
for household contents insurance every year?
Did the employer pay you mileage-based travel expenses for theIn 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"
business use of your car?
they didn't triggered it.
So what was the problem?
That they required me to have the roadside assistance policy, at my
own expense.
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
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.
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.
On 11/01/2024 05:04 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l09sqvFlcfnU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:05:19 on Thu, 11
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 11/01/2024 07:14 am, Roland Perry wrote:Oh, so what you meant to write was "You can't get insurance for a
In message <l07q5fF92v7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:07:27 on Wed,
10 Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 10/01/2024 09:48 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:45 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@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?
*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.
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?
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@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.
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.
On 12/01/2024 01:29 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
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?
Some local authorities never had their own testing facilities and DID
rely upon the MOT test. Has that changed?
In message <l0bj5sFh0pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 01:32:44 on Fri, 12 Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 11/01/2024 03:09 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l09sttFlcfnU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 11/01/2024 07:10 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l07pcgF8v40U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:54:08 on Wed, 10 >>>>> Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 10/01/2024 06:45 am, Roland Perry wrote:Although as an engineer I'm very much aware of impending hiccups, to >>>>> get them fixed before the car breaks down.
In message <l056nnFp178U1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:23:37 on Tue, >>>>>>> 9 Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2024 09:23 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@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.
I have only ever called out roadside assistance once in my[and:]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?
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: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.
https://www.gov.uk/expenses-if-youre-self-employed/travel) >>>>>>>>>
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.
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".
You may not have thought of it this way... but you've been lucky.
Would you complain about never having been burgled despite payingThey would have done, if they ever required me to. But in six years >>>>> they didn't triggered it.
for household contents insurance every year?
Did the employer pay you mileage-based travel expenses for theIn 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"
business use of your car?
So what was the problem?
That they required me to have the roadside assistance policy, at my
own expense.
But why, if you were not using the car on (their) business?
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws against >indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my head. And quite a lot >of case law, I should think.
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:57:49 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:29 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
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?
No; it's still assumed that an entirely new vehicle will be roadworthy.
On 12/01/2024 04:48 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@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
Your deliberate misinterpretation is becoming beyond tedious.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 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.
I have misinterpreted nothing.
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws against
indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my head. And quite a lot >> of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common requirement in employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean licence,
business use insurance, and their own car. Rather than the employer
saying "in the absence of any one of those, you can pout a taxi on your expenses".
On 13 Jan 2024 at 05:55:56 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws against
indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my head. And quite a lot
of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common requirement in
employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean licence,
business use insurance, and their own car. Rather than the employer
saying "in the absence of any one of those, you can pout a taxi on your
expenses".
I answered the question you asked, about unfair employment contracts.
I expressed no opinion on the fairness of the contract terms you
mentioned.
In message <l0f2gtFkg0hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:13:01 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 13 Jan 2024 at 05:55:56 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws against >>>> indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my head. And quite a lot
of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common requirement in
employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean licence,
business use insurance, and their own car. Rather than the employer
saying "in the absence of any one of those, you can pout a taxi on your
expenses".
I answered the question you asked, about unfair employment contracts.
With some legislative examples none of which have the word "unfair" in
their title.
I expressed no opinion on the fairness of the contract terms you
mentioned.
On 13 Jan 2024 at 10:45:23 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0f2gtFkg0hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:13:01 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 13 Jan 2024 at 05:55:56 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws against >>>>> indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my head. And >>>>>quite a lot
of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common requirement in >>>> employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean licence,
business use insurance, and their own car. Rather than the employer
saying "in the absence of any one of those, you can pout a taxi on your >>>> expenses".
I answered the question you asked, about unfair employment contracts.
With some legislative examples none of which have the word "unfair" in
their title.
But they all described employment contract terms which would be unenforceable
because they were not considered to be fair or reasonable for the employee. >Your point is? You didn't ask for specific employment law Acts which included >"unfair" in their title, and it would not be useful to have done so.
In message <l0f9tpFlspfU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:19:21 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 13 Jan 2024 at 10:45:23 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0f2gtFkg0hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:13:01 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 13 Jan 2024 at 05:55:56 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12 >>>>> Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws against >>>>>> indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my head. And
quite a lot
of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common requirement in >>>>> employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean licence,
business use insurance, and their own car. Rather than the employer
saying "in the absence of any one of those, you can pout a taxi on your >>>>> expenses".
I answered the question you asked, about unfair employment contracts.
With some legislative examples none of which have the word "unfair" in
their title.
But they all described employment contract terms which would be unenforceable
Unenforceable contains a whole bunch of things which are not within the
realm of the OFT [enforcer of "unfair contracts"] as was.
because they were not considered to be fair or reasonable for the employee. >> Your point is? You didn't ask for specific employment law Acts which included
"unfair" in their title, and it would not be useful to have done so.
Perhaps you could answer my question about the employee calling a taxi
at the firm's expense, if he thought the employment contract stipulation
was unfair (and knew that in the short/medium term if he ignored it,
he'd be fired).
On 13 Jan 2024 at 14:02:56 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0f9tpFlspfU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:19:21 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 13 Jan 2024 at 10:45:23 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0f2gtFkg0hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:13:01 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 13 Jan 2024 at 05:55:56 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>With some legislative examples none of which have the word "unfair" in >>>> their title.
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12 >>>>>> Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment >>>>>>>> contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws >>>>>>>against indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my
quite a lot of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common requirement in >>>>>> employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean licence, >>>>>> business use insurance, and their own car. Rather than the employer >>>>>> saying "in the absence of any one of those, you can pout a taxi on your >>>>>> expenses".
I answered the question you asked, about unfair employment contracts. >>>>
But they all described employment contract terms which would be >>>unenforceable
Unenforceable contains a whole bunch of things which are not within the
realm of the OFT [enforcer of "unfair contracts"] as was.
because they were not considered to be fair or reasonable for the employee. >>> Your point is? You didn't ask for specific employment law Acts which >>>included
"unfair" in their title, and it would not be useful to have done so.
Perhaps you could answer my question about the employee calling a taxi
at the firm's expense, if he thought the employment contract stipulation
was unfair (and knew that in the short/medium term if he ignored it,
he'd be fired).
He could either put up with it
or go for constructive dismissal or unfair dismissal
depending how things pan out. But whether he could prove the latter
would *not* depend on whether the word "unfair" appeared at all in the >relevant law, let alone in the title of an Act.
In message <l0f9tpFlspfU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:19:21 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 13 Jan 2024 at 10:45:23 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0f2gtFkg0hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:13:01 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 13 Jan 2024 at 05:55:56 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12 >>>>> Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws
against
indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my head. And
quite a lot
of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common
requirement in
employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean licence,
business use insurance, and their own car. Rather than the employer
saying "in the absence of any one of those, you can pout a taxi on
your
expenses".
I answered the question you asked, about unfair employment contracts.
With some legislative examples none of which have the word "unfair" in
their title.
But they all described employment contract terms which would be
unenforceable
Unenforceable contains a whole bunch of things which are not within the
realm of the OFT [enforcer of "unfair contracts"] as was.
because they were not considered to be fair or reasonable for the
employee.
Your point is? You didn't ask for specific employment law Acts which
included
"unfair" in their title, and it would not be useful to have done so.
Perhaps you could answer my question about the employee calling a taxi
at the firm's expense, if he thought the employment contract stipulation
was unfair (and knew that in the short/medium term if he ignored it,
he'd be fired).
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws against
indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my head. And quite
a lot
of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common requirement in employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean licence,
business use insurance, and their own car.
Rather than the employer
saying "in the absence of any one of those, you can pout a taxi on your expenses".
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:57:49 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:29 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
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?
No; it's still assumed that an entirely new vehicle will be roadworthy. So there's no legal requirement for an MOT for taxis less than a year old. But
a licensing authority may well require it, in which case the operator would need to get an MOT done as soon as they buy the vehicle.
Some local authorities never had their own testing facilities and DID
rely upon the MOT test. Has that changed?
No. If the authority doesn't run its own tests (or doesn't outsource it to one or more approved provides), then the vehicle needs a normal MOT.
In message <iga3qilv3mvg65kscbqd3s290tss24basj@4ax.com>, at 21:09:57 on
Fri, 12 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:57:49 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:29 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
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?
No; it's still assumed that an entirely new vehicle will be roadworthy.
Flanders and Swann: "They've started testing cars now. It started at 10 years, then 5, now three. There's even some talk of having them tested
before they leave the factory."
In message <l0des3Fbce5U1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:31:30 on Fri, 12
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/01/2024 04:48 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@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 isI can't see how that can be true.
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. >>>
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
Your deliberate misinterpretation is becoming beyond tedious.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 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)
Slim pickings out here in rural Cambridgeshire, when for example the
station has only one train an hour, and not even a cab-rank.
to a friend rather than putting it to work.
Then you need to hone your comprehension skills. I explained it exactly
- some days he hires a white van and drives that instead. In fact he
isn't a full-time taxi driver anyway, mainly doing just lucrative
pre-booked school-runs.
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.
I would use it for my own SD&P, which I sincerely hope you will not try
to challenge as a lawful activity.
I have misinterpreted nothing.
If you really believe that, it speaks volumes.
On 12/01/2024 09:09 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:57:49 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:29 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
[ ... ]
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?
No; it's still assumed that an entirely new vehicle will be roadworthy. So >> there's no legal requirement for an MOT for taxis less than a year old. But >> a licensing authority may well require it, in which case the operator would >> need to get an MOT done as soon as they buy the vehicle.
Some local authorities never had their own testing facilities and DID
rely upon the MOT test. Has that changed?
No. If the authority doesn't run its own tests (or doesn't outsource it to >> one or more approved provides), then the vehicle needs a normal MOT.
Well, ever since circa 1960, that was already the case. it's this
automatic issuing of an MOT certificate to vehicles which are in any
case subject to a more stringent regime which is the change, according
to what you have said.
There is no obvious reason for that change. There is certainly no
benefit to anyone arising from it.
On 13/01/2024 05:55 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws
against indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my head.
And quite a lot of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common requirement
in employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean
licence, business use insurance, and their own car.
I have certainly had those requirements applied to me (and easily
satisfied them).
But that was because I was using my car for transport on official
business and was claiming expenses, mileage, subsistence and
incidentals such as parking, tolls, etc).
Rather than the employer saying "in the absence of any one of those,
you can pout a taxi on your expenses".
Did you ever have a hire car booked for you?
For longer journeys (eg, 150 miles return), I would often arrive home
to find a hire car awaiting me for use the next morning - originally on
my driveway (I soon had that practice stopped, with the hire car left
on the road).
On 12/01/2024 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2024 03:09 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l09sttFlcfnU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11But why, if you were not using the car on (their) business?
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
So what was the problem?
That they required me to have the roadside assistance policy, at my own
expense. b
Roland hasn't provided details but perhaps his salary included a 'car >allowance' in lieu of a company car as there are incentives to both the >employer and employee in doing this.
Even if it wasn't "ring-fenced" as such within the contract of
employment, providing Roland wasn't earning minimum wage, which I
seriously doubt, the employer would be able to argue that the salary
included a car allowance and this is why it is fair and reasonable for
the contract of employment to detail which vehicles may be used whilst
on company business.
There is such a thing as an unfair contract.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. But I doubt this would be even close to qualifying unless
you have some specific legislation or case law to cite?
Why do you need personal membership of the AA for that?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.
As I pointed out in a previous post to this thread, (although I didn't >provide a specific cite which I will take this opportunity to address),
in their advice for "Driving and riding safely for work" the Health and >Safety Executive state the following in section 6, The law and how it
is regulated [1]:
<Begin Quote>
You or your organisation could be prosecuted for Gross Negligence >Manslaughter or under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide
Act 2007 if:
one of your workers is involved in a road traffic incident while
driving for work and this results in the death of the worker or another >person,
and
there is evidence that the death was caused by either a grossly
negligent act or omission; or by serious management failures amounting
to a ‘gross breach of a relevant duty of care’
<End Quote>
Additionally, ROSPA have produced a document which covers the risks of >employees using their own vehicles at work and the risks employers must >consider. [2]
Companies are risk averse and the mere risk of prosecution may cause
them to respond with what some see as an over-reaction.
Be that as it may, employers have a legal duty to perform a risk
assessment for employees that may be required to drive as part of their
job.
This can include ensuring that they have membership of an approved
breakdown service so that should they, for example, get a flat tyre on
the motorway, the breakdown service will either recover the vehicle or
change the tyre for them, rather than the employee doing it with the >unavoidable risk involved for the employee and the potential for the
HSE involvement should there be an incident.
In the past, I've had to complete (a series of boxes that needed
initialling) and sign a declaration each month confirming that I've
carried out the necessary safety inspections on my personal car which I
was authorised to use for work purposes. (E.g. checking tyre pressure,
tyre tread depth, ensuring there is sufficient screen wash in the
vehicle, that the windscreen wipers are working effectively, that the
vehicle has been washed and vacuumed no less frequently than
fortnightly etc.)
Then there was the annual production of one's driving licence,
insurance certificate and MOT to ensure everything was in order.
IME, (which I appreciate may be different from yours), this is the way
it is in large, well-run organisations.
[snip remainder of post]
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/employer/the-law.htm#article
[2]
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/employer >s/work-own-vehicles.pdf
On 13/01/2024 02:02 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l0f9tpFlspfU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:19:21 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 13 Jan 2024 at 10:45:23 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0f2gtFkg0hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:13:01 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 13 Jan 2024 at 05:55:56 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12 >>>>>> Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
With some legislative examples none of which have the word "unfair" in >>>> their title.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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment >>>>>>>> contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws >>>>>>>against indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my >>>>>>>head. And quite a lot of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common >>>>>>requirement in
employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean licence, >>>>>> business use insurance, and their own car. Rather than the employer >>>>>> saying "in the absence of any one of those, you can pout a taxi
on your
expenses".
I answered the question you asked, about unfair employment contracts. >>>>
But they all described employment contract terms which would be >>>unenforceable
Unenforceable contains a whole bunch of things which are not within
the realm of the OFT [enforcer of "unfair contracts"] as was.
because they were not considered to be fair or reasonable for the >>>employee. Your point is? You didn't ask for specific employment law
Acts which included "unfair" in their title, and it would not be
useful to have done so.
Perhaps you could answer my question about the employee calling a
taxi at the firm's expense, if he thought the employment contract >>stipulation was unfair (and knew that in the short/medium term if he >>ignored it, he'd be fired).
How could anyone answer that, without being able to detect and
understand your employer's mind-set?
On 13/01/2024 06:06 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l0des3Fbce5U1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:31:30 on Fri, 12
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/01/2024 04:48 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi >>>>>>>>>>>>
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 >>>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)
Slim pickings out here in rural Cambridgeshire, when for example the >>station has only one train an hour, and not even a cab-rank.
...And?
to a friend rather than putting it to work.
Then you need to hone your comprehension skills. I explained it
exactly - some days he hires a white van and drives that instead. In
fact he isn't a full-time taxi driver anyway, mainly doing just
lucrative pre-booked school-runs.
That doesn't make it legal for an unlicenced driver to borrow a
licenced taxi, does it?
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.
I would use it for my own SD&P, which I sincerely hope you will not
try to challenge as a lawful activity.
On which insurance?
Are you sure the taxi is Road Taxed for private use (they usually
aren't, though the proprietor may have opt for it at extra expense)?
In message <l0fqudForqoU4@mid.individual.net>, at 16:09:50 on Sat, 13
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 13/01/2024 05:55 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l0e03tFecouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:25:49 on Fri, 12
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws
against indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my
head. And quite a lot of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common requirement
in employment contracts that an employee not only has a clean
licence, business use insurance, and their own car.
I have certainly had those requirements applied to me (and easily
satisfied them).
But that was because I was using my car for transport on official
business and was claiming expenses, mileage, subsistence and
incidentals such as parking, tolls, etc).
I have already stated that in six years I was never required to use the
car on business, so there's no revenue to offset those costs from.
Rather than the employer saying "in the absence of any one of those,
you can pout a taxi on your expenses".
Did you ever have a hire car booked for you?
That would be impractical because any requirement for ad-hoc use of the
car on business would almost certainly occur spontaneously, and you
can't hire a car in five minutes.
For longer journeys (eg, 150 miles return), I would often arrive home
to find a hire car awaiting me for use the next morning - originally
on my driveway (I soon had that practice stopped, with the hire car
left on the road).
The ad-hoc trips I would have made, most likely less than five miles per session.
On 12/01/2024 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2024 03:09 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l09sttFlcfnU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
So what was the problem?
That they required me to have the roadside assistance policy, at my own
expense. b
But why, if you were not using the car on (their) business?
Roland hasn't provided details but perhaps his salary included a 'car allowance' in lieu of a company car as there are incentives to both the employer and employee in doing this.
Even if it wasn't "ring-fenced" as such within the contract of
employment, providing Roland wasn't earning minimum wage, which I
seriously doubt, the employer would be able to argue that the salary
included a car allowance and this is why it is fair and reasonable for
the contract of employment to detail which vehicles may be used whilst
on company 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.
There is. But I doubt this would be even close to qualifying unless you have some specific legislation or case law to cite?
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?
As I pointed out in a previous post to this thread, (although I didn't provide a specific cite which I will take this opportunity to address),
in their advice for "Driving and riding safely for work" the Health and Safety Executive state the following in section 6, The law and how it is regulated [1]:
<Begin Quote>
You or your organisation could be prosecuted for Gross Negligence Manslaughter or under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide
Act 2007 if:
one of your workers is involved in a road traffic incident while driving
for work and this results in the death of the worker or another person,
and
there is evidence that the death was caused by either a grossly
negligent act or omission; or by serious management failures amounting
to a ‘gross breach of a relevant duty of care’
<End Quote>
Additionally, ROSPA have produced a document which covers the risks of employees using their own vehicles at work and the risks employers must consider. [2]
Companies are risk averse and the mere risk of prosecution may cause
them to respond with what some see as an over-reaction.
Be that as it may, employers have a legal duty to perform a risk
assessment for employees that may be required to drive as part of their
job.
This can include ensuring that they have membership of an approved
breakdown service so that should they, for example, get a flat tyre on
the motorway, the breakdown service will either recover the vehicle or
change the tyre for them, rather than the employee doing it with the unavoidable risk involved for the employee and the potential for the HSE involvement should there be an incident.
In the past, I've had to complete (a series of boxes that needed
initialling) and sign a declaration each month confirming that I've
carried out the necessary safety inspections on my personal car which I
was authorised to use for work purposes. (E.g. checking tyre pressure,
tyre tread depth, ensuring there is sufficient screen wash in the
vehicle, that the windscreen wipers are working effectively, that the
vehicle has been washed and vacuumed no less frequently than fortnightly etc.)
Then there was the annual production of one's driving licence, insurance certificate and MOT to ensure everything was in order.
IME, (which I appreciate may be different from yours), this is the way
it is in large, well-run organisations.
[snip remainder of post]
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/employer/the-law.htm#article
[2] https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/employers/work-own-vehicles.pdf
On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:05:44 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2024 09:09 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:57:49 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:29 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
[ ... ]
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?
No; it's still assumed that an entirely new vehicle will be roadworthy. So >>> there's no legal requirement for an MOT for taxis less than a year old. But >>> a licensing authority may well require it, in which case the operator would >>> need to get an MOT done as soon as they buy the vehicle.
Some local authorities never had their own testing facilities and DID
rely upon the MOT test. Has that changed?
No. If the authority doesn't run its own tests (or doesn't outsource it to >>> one or more approved provides), then the vehicle needs a normal MOT.
Well, ever since circa 1960, that was already the case. it's this
automatic issuing of an MOT certificate to vehicles which are in any
case subject to a more stringent regime which is the change, according
to what you have said.
There is no obvious reason for that change. There is certainly no
benefit to anyone arising from it.
The reason is so that the vehicle will show up on the PNC and the DVLA MOT checker as having a valid MOT. And so that the vehicle has a valid MOT if
and when the owner wants to sell it.
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 13/01/2024 06:06 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l0des3Fbce5U1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:31:30 on Fri, 12
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/01/2024 04:48 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi
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
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)
Slim pickings out here in rural Cambridgeshire, when for example the
station has only one train an hour, and not even a cab-rank.
...And?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It means it's difficult to earn a
living as a full-time taxi driver, so there's other things they do,
which don't require then to be driving their taxi.
to a friend rather than putting it to work.
Then you need to hone your comprehension skills. I explained it
exactly - some days he hires a white van and drives that instead. In
fact he isn't a full-time taxi driver anyway, mainly doing just
lucrative pre-booked school-runs.
That doesn't make it legal for an unlicenced driver to borrow a
licenced taxi, does it?
Please provide a cite for any rule which says only licenced taxi drivers
are allowed to drive a car with "Taxi" painted on the side. They
wouldn't be able to ply-for-hire, but I've already debunked that
particular red herring.
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.
I would use it for my own SD&P, which I sincerely hope you will not
try to challenge as a lawful activity.
On which insurance?
Could be anything from an "any driver" type policy on his vehicle, to an "other vehicle" clause in my policy, or even the kind of one-day
insurance you can buy online these days.
Are you sure the taxi is Road Taxed for private use (they usually
aren't, though the proprietor may have opt for it at extra expense)?
What makes you think taxis are exempt from VED (or even have a
concessionary rate)?
On 13/01/2024 09:53 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2024 03:09 pm, Roland Perry wrote:Roland hasn't provided details but perhaps his salary included a
In message <l09sttFlcfnU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
So what was the problem?
That they required me to have the roadside assistance policy, at my own >>>> expense. b
But why, if you were not using the car on (their) business?
'car allowance' in lieu of a company car as there are incentives to
both the employer and employee in doing this.
Perhaps. Good point. But that would not have supported the "at my own >expense" bit.
Even if it wasn't "ring-fenced" as such within the contract of >>employment, providing Roland wasn't earning minimum wage, which I
seriously doubt, the employer would be able to argue that the salary >>included a car allowance and this is why it is fair and reasonable for
the contract of employment to detail which vehicles may be used whilst
on company business.
Well, quite.
But...
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.
There is. But I doubt this would be even close to qualifying
unless you have some specific legislation or case law to cite?
Insistence - for no obvious good reason - that an employee spend a
couple of hundred a year on a privately-provided service and without
meeting that cost as an expense - sounds pretty unfair to me.
It must seem unfaor
to RP as well, otherwise he wouldn't complain about it, because he'd
have nothing to complain about, n'est-ce-pas?
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?
As I pointed out in a previous post to this thread, (although I
didn't provide a specific cite which I will take this opportunity to >>address), in their advice for "Driving and riding safely for work"
the Health and Safety Executive state the following in section 6, The
law and how it is regulated [1]:
<Begin Quote>
You or your organisation could be prosecuted for Gross Negligence >>Manslaughter or under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act 2007 if:
one of your workers is involved in a road traffic incident while
driving for work and this results in the death of the worker or
another person,
and
there is evidence that the death was caused by either a grossly
negligent act or omission; or by serious management failures amounting
to a ‘gross breach of a relevant duty of care’
<End Quote>
Additionally, ROSPA have produced a document which covers the risks
of employees using their own vehicles at work and the risks employers
must consider. [2]
Companies are risk averse and the mere risk of prosecution may cause
them to respond with what some see as an over-reaction.
Be that as it may, employers have a legal duty to perform a risk >>assessment for employees that may be required to drive as part of
their job.
This can include ensuring that they have membership of an approved >>breakdown service so that should they, for example, get a flat tyre on
the motorway, the breakdown service will either recover the vehicle or >>change the tyre for them, rather than the employee doing it with the >>unavoidable risk involved for the employee and the potential for the
HSE involvement should there be an incident.
One does not *reasonably* ensure that by insisting that the employee
pays the cost. The company could itself provide AA or ARC (other
breakdown services are available) attached to the company vehicle(s).
In the past, I've had to complete (a series of boxes that needed >>initialling) and sign a declaration each month confirming that I've
carried out the necessary safety inspections on my personal car which
I was authorised to use for work purposes. (E.g. checking tyre
pressure, tyre tread depth, ensuring there is sufficient screen wash
in the vehicle, that the windscreen wipers are working effectively,
that the vehicle has been washed and vacuumed no less frequently than >>fortnightly etc.)
Then there was the annual production of one's driving licence,
insurance certificate and MOT to ensure everything was in order.
IME, (which I appreciate may be different from yours), this is the
way it is in large, well-run organisations.
Yes, the same (other than the fortnightly car-wash - never a great
pastime with me).
I had to provide evidence of fully comp insurance
in order to be able to get the full mileage rate.
[snip remainder of post]
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/employer/the-law.htm#article
[2] >>https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/employe >>rs/work-own-vehicles.pdf
In message <l0i68mF7h6pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:35:18 on Sun, 14
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 13/01/2024 09:53 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2024 03:09 pm, Roland Perry wrote:Roland hasn't provided details but perhaps his salary included a
In message <l09sttFlcfnU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11 >>>>> Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
So what was the problem?
That they required me to have the roadside assistance policy, at my own >>>>> expense. b
But why, if you were not using the car on (their) business?
'car allowance' in lieu of a company car as there are incentives to
both the employer and employee in doing this.
Perhaps. Good point. But that would not have supported the "at my own
expense" bit.
Please try to keep up! The "own expense" here was having business and roadside assistance insurance at my own expense, with no actual business mileage to set them against.
Even if it wasn't "ring-fenced" as such within the contract of
employment, providing Roland wasn't earning minimum wage, which I
seriously doubt, the employer would be able to argue that the salary
included a car allowance and this is why it is fair and reasonable for
the contract of employment to detail which vehicles may be used whilst
on company business.
Well, quite.
But...
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.
There is. But I doubt this would be even close to qualifying
unless you have some specific legislation or case law to cite?
Insistence - for no obvious good reason - that an employee spend a
couple of hundred a year on a privately-provided service and without
meeting that cost as an expense - sounds pretty unfair to me.
"Unfair" is a term of art, and is far too readily bandied about.
snip
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 13/01/2024 09:53 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2024 03:09 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l09sttFlcfnU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11 >>>>> Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
So what was the problem?
That they required me to have the roadside assistance policy, at my
own expense. b
But why, if you were not using the car on (their) business?
Roland hasn't provided details but perhaps his salary included a
'car allowance' in lieu of a company car as there are incentives to
both the employer and employee in doing this.
Perhaps. Good point. But that would not have supported the "at my own
expense" bit.
Please try to keep up! The "own expense" here was having business and roadside assistance insurance at my own expense, with no actual business mileage to set them against.
Even if it wasn't "ring-fenced" as such within the contract of
employment, providing Roland wasn't earning minimum wage, which I
seriously doubt, the employer would be able to argue that the salary
included a car allowance and this is why it is fair and reasonable
for the contract of employment to detail which vehicles may be used
whilst on company business.
Well, quite.
But...
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.
There is. But I doubt this would be even close to qualifying unless
you have some specific legislation or case law to cite?
Insistence - for no obvious good reason - that an employee spend a
couple of hundred a year on a privately-provided service and without
meeting that cost as an expense - sounds pretty unfair to me.
"Unfair" is a term of art, and is far too readily bandied about.
There were plenty of other things employees were expected to comply
with, for no recompense. For example a very stern memo sent round when
we were all required to work from home "Because of Covid", that over
their dead body could we claim any connectivity/heating/etc costs.
It must seem unfaor
Inequitable, to avoid the term of art.
to RP as well, otherwise he wouldn't complain about it, because he'd
have nothing to complain about, n'est-ce-pas?
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?
As I pointed out in a previous post to this thread, (although I
didn't provide a specific cite which I will take this opportunity to
address), in their advice for "Driving and riding safely for work"
the Health and Safety Executive state the following in section 6,
The law and how it is regulated [1]:
<Begin Quote>
You or your organisation could be prosecuted for Gross Negligence
Manslaughter or under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act 2007 if:
one of your workers is involved in a road traffic incident while
driving for work and this results in the death of the worker or
another person,
and
there is evidence that the death was caused by either a grossly
negligent act or omission; or by serious management failures
amounting to a ‘gross breach of a relevant duty of care’
<End Quote>
Additionally, ROSPA have produced a document which covers the risks
of employees using their own vehicles at work and the risks
employers must consider. [2]
Companies are risk averse and the mere risk of prosecution may cause
them to respond with what some see as an over-reaction.
Be that as it may, employers have a legal duty to perform a risk
assessment for employees that may be required to drive as part of
their job.
This can include ensuring that they have membership of an approved
breakdown service so that should they, for example, get a flat tyre
on the motorway, the breakdown service will either recover the
vehicle or change the tyre for them, rather than the employee doing
it with the unavoidable risk involved for the employee and the
potential for the HSE involvement should there be an incident.
One does not *reasonably* ensure that by insisting that the employee
pays the cost. The company could itself provide AA or ARC (other
breakdown services are available) attached to the company vehicle(s).
In the past, I've had to complete (a series of boxes that needed
initialling) and sign a declaration each month confirming that I've
carried out the necessary safety inspections on my personal car which
I was authorised to use for work purposes. (E.g. checking tyre
pressure, tyre tread depth, ensuring there is sufficient screen wash
in the vehicle, that the windscreen wipers are working effectively,
that the vehicle has been washed and vacuumed no less frequently
than fortnightly etc.)
Then there was the annual production of one's driving licence,
insurance certificate and MOT to ensure everything was in order.
IME, (which I appreciate may be different from yours), this is the
way it is in large, well-run organisations.
Yes, the same (other than the fortnightly car-wash - never a great
pastime with me).
Back in the day a weekly/fortnightly car wash (at the employee's
expense) was a common condition of employment. For the hard of
understanding, non-compliance meant no transport available, which
meant you were fired.
Another job I once had required employees to be suitably dressed (at
their own expense) and presentable to customers. They generously gave
every employee an allowance to have one business suit dry-cleaned per year.
I had to provide evidence of fully comp insurance
And nowadays business use as well.
in order to be able to get the full mileage rate.
Did they really have a scheme to pay you less than the "full" rate if
you chose to drive uninsured?
[snip remainder of post]
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/employer/the-law.htm#article
[2]
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/employe
rs/work-own-vehicles.pdf
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 alsoThere is such a thing as an unfair contract.
contractually required to comply with.
Are you quite sure there's such a thing as an unfair employment
contract?
Cites please.
Truck Acts, abolition of slavery, Working Time Directive, laws >>>>>against indentured labour which I don't know off the top of my
head. And quite a lot of case law, I should think.
Please explain how those might apply to the quite common
requirement in employment contracts that an employee not only has
a clean licence, business use insurance, and their own car.
I have certainly had those requirements applied to me (and easily >>>satisfied them).
But that was because I was using my car for transport on official >>>business and was claiming expenses, mileage, subsistence and
incidentals such as parking, tolls, etc).
I have already stated that in six years I was never required to use
the car on business, so there's no revenue to offset those costs from.
Yes. I know. It is those facts which are so inexplicable (and your
employer's stance can reasonably be described as "unfair").
Rather than the employer saying "in the absence of any one of
those, you can pout a taxi on your expenses".
Did you ever have a hire car booked for you?
That would be impractical because any requirement for ad-hoc use of
the car on business would almost certainly occur spontaneously, and
you can't hire a car in five minutes.
For longer journeys (eg, 150 miles return), I would often arrive
home to find a hire car awaiting me for use the next morning - >>>originally on my driveway (I soon had that practice stopped, with
the hire car left on the road).
The ad-hoc trips I would have made, most likely less than five miles
per session.
But you didn't get expenses for that, you say?
On 14/01/2024 08:08 am, Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 13/01/2024 06:06 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l0des3Fbce5U1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:31:30 on Fri,
12 Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/01/2024 04:48 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
If you act as a taxi driver you should insure as a taxi
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
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)
Slim pickings out here in rural Cambridgeshire, when for example
the station has only one train an hour, and not even a cab-rank.
...And?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It means it's difficult to earn a >>living as a full-time taxi driver, so there's other things they do,
which don't require then to be driving their taxi.
That bit is fair enough.
It doesn't change the law on taxi- and taxi-driver licencing.
to a friend rather than putting it to work.
Then you need to hone your comprehension skills. I explained it >>>>exactly - some days he hires a white van and drives that instead.
In fact he isn't a full-time taxi driver anyway, mainly doing just >>>>lucrative pre-booked school-runs.
That doesn't make it legal for an unlicenced driver to borrow a
licenced taxi, does it?
Please provide a cite for any rule which says only licenced taxiIs the vehicle insured for "any driver" or "any driver with a hackney >carriage driver's licence"?
drivers are allowed to drive a car with "Taxi" painted on the side.
They wouldn't be able to ply-for-hire, but I've already debunked that >>particular red herring.
Could be anything from an "any driver" type policy on his vehicle,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.
I would use it for my own SD&P, which I sincerely hope you will
not try to challenge as a lawful activity.
On which insurance?
to an "other vehicle" clause in my policy, or even the kind of
one-day insurance you can buy online these days.
"Could be"?
But is it?
Are you sure the taxi is Road Taxed for private use (they usually >>>aren't, though the proprietor may have opt for it at extra expense)?
What makes you think taxis are exempt from VED (or even have a >>concessionary rate)?
They aren't exempt from Road Tax. Far from it,
though it does seem that the old Hackney rate has now been subsumed
into the current dog's breakfast of different rates of Road Tax
depending on all sorts of things, including (of all things) "list price".
On 14 Jan 2024 at 18:52:21 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0i68mF7h6pU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:35:18 on Sun, 14
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 13/01/2024 09:53 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2024 03:09 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l09sttFlcfnU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11 >>>>>> Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
So what was the problem?
That they required me to have the roadside assistance policy, at my own >>>>>> expense. b
But why, if you were not using the car on (their) business?
Roland hasn't provided details but perhaps his salary included a
'car allowance' in lieu of a company car as there are incentives to
both the employer and employee in doing this.
Perhaps. Good point. But that would not have supported the "at my own
expense" bit.
Please try to keep up! The "own expense" here was having business and
roadside assistance insurance at my own expense, with no actual business
mileage to set them against.
Even if it wasn't "ring-fenced" as such within the contract of
employment, providing Roland wasn't earning minimum wage, which I
seriously doubt, the employer would be able to argue that the salary
included a car allowance and this is why it is fair and reasonable for >>>> the contract of employment to detail which vehicles may be used whilst >>>> on company business.
Well, quite.
But...
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.
There is. But I doubt this would be even close to qualifying
unless you have some specific legislation or case law to cite?
Insistence - for no obvious good reason - that an employee spend a
couple of hundred a year on a privately-provided service and without
meeting that cost as an expense - sounds pretty unfair to me.
"Unfair" is a term of art, and is far too readily bandied about.
snip
I believe it is only a term of art (if at all) in relation to some consumer >contracts.
I can't remember if it is actually used in the terms of the Act or
just in the title.
On 14/01/2024 06:52 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 13/01/2024 09:53 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2024 03:09 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l09sttFlcfnU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:06:53 on Thu, 11 >>>>>> Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
So what was the problem?
That they required me to have the roadside assistance policy, at >>>>>>my own expense. b
But why, if you were not using the car on (their) business?
Roland hasn't provided details but perhaps his salary included a >>>>'car allowance' in lieu of a company car as there are incentives
to both the employer and employee in doing this.
Perhaps. Good point. But that would not have supported the "at my
own expense" bit.
Please try to keep up! The "own expense" here was having business
and roadside assistance insurance at my own expense, with no actual >>business mileage to set them against.
That's exactly what I thought you meant.
And it's exactly what I said.
Even if it wasn't "ring-fenced" as such within the contract of >>>>employment, providing Roland wasn't earning minimum wage, which I >>>>seriously doubt, the employer would be able to argue that the salary >>>>included a car allowance and this is why it is fair and reasonable
for the contract of employment to detail which vehicles may be used >>>>whilst on company business.
Well, quite.
But...
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.
There is. But I doubt this would be even close to qualifying >>>>unless you have some specific legislation or case law to cite?
Insistence - for no obvious good reason - that an employee spend a >>>couple of hundred a year on a privately-provided service and without >>>meeting that cost as an expense - sounds pretty unfair to me.
"Unfair" is a term of art, and is far too readily bandied about.
Ordinary English dictionary meaning will do for me.
There were plenty of other things employees were expected to comply
with, for no recompense. For example a very stern memo sent round when
we were all required to work from home "Because of Covid", that over
their dead body could we claim any connectivity/heating/etc costs.
It must seem unfaorInequitable, to avoid the term of art.
to RP as well, otherwise he wouldn't complain about it, because he'd >>>have nothing to complain about, n'est-ce-pas?
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?
As I pointed out in a previous post to this thread, (although I >>>>didn't provide a specific cite which I will take this opportunity
to address), in their advice for "Driving and riding safely for >>>>work" the Health and Safety Executive state the following in
section 6, The law and how it is regulated [1]:
<Begin Quote>
You or your organisation could be prosecuted for Gross Negligence >>>>Manslaughter or under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate >>>>Homicide Act 2007 if:
one of your workers is involved in a road traffic incident while >>>>driving for work and this results in the death of the worker or >>>>another person,
and
there is evidence that the death was caused by either a grossly >>>>negligent act or omission; or by serious management failures
amounting to a ‘gross breach of a relevant duty of care’
<End Quote>
Additionally, ROSPA have produced a document which covers the
risks of employees using their own vehicles at work and the risks >>>>employers must consider. [2]
Companies are risk averse and the mere risk of prosecution may
cause them to respond with what some see as an over-reaction.
Be that as it may, employers have a legal duty to perform a risk >>>>assessment for employees that may be required to drive as part of >>>>their job.
This can include ensuring that they have membership of an
approved breakdown service so that should they, for example, get a
flat tyre on the motorway, the breakdown service will either recover >>>>the vehicle or change the tyre for them, rather than the employee
doing it with the unavoidable risk involved for the employee and the >>>>potential for the HSE involvement should there be an incident.
One does not *reasonably* ensure that by insisting that the employee >>>pays the cost. The company could itself provide AA or ARC (other >>>breakdown services are available) attached to the company vehicle(s).
In the past, I've had to complete (a series of boxes that needed >>>>initialling) and sign a declaration each month confirming that I've >>>>carried out the necessary safety inspections on my personal car
which I was authorised to use for work purposes. (E.g. checking >>>>tyre pressure, tyre tread depth, ensuring there is sufficient
screen wash in the vehicle, that the windscreen wipers are
working effectively, that the vehicle has been washed and
vacuumed no less frequently than fortnightly etc.)
Then there was the annual production of one's driving licence, >>>>insurance certificate and MOT to ensure everything was in order.
IME, (which I appreciate may be different from yours), this is
the way it is in large, well-run organisations.
Yes, the same (other than the fortnightly car-wash - never a great >>>pastime with me).
Back in the day a weekly/fortnightly car wash (at the employee's
expense) was a common condition of employment. For the hard of >>understanding, non-compliance meant no transport available, which
meant you were fired.
No transport available for a job where you were not required to travel
(hence getting no travel expenses)?
Another job I once had required employees to be suitably dressed (at >>their own expense) and presentable to customers. They generously gave
every employee an allowance to have one business suit dry-cleaned per
year.
I had to provide evidence of fully comp insuranceAnd nowadays business use as well.
Yes. That too.
in order to be able to get the full mileage rate.
Did they really have a scheme to pay you less than the "full" rate
if you chose to drive uninsured?
Uninsured, you wouldn't have got anything at all because you wouldn't
have been sent in your own car.
Yes - there is a lower rate. From memory, about 25p instead of 45p.
[snip remainder of post]
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/employer/the-law.htm#article
[2] >>>>https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/employe >>>> rs/work-own-vehicles.pdf
In message <l0iq4pFaunaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:14:34 on Sun, 14
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 14/01/2024 06:52 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
"Unfair" is a term of art, and is far too readily bandied about.
Ordinary English dictionary meaning will do for me.
But, Norman, the word is not in any Act relating to employment
contracts.
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 06:13:49 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l0iq4pFaunaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:14:34 on Sun, 14
Jan 2024, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> remarked:
On 14/01/2024 06:52 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
"Unfair" is a term of art, and is far too readily bandied about.
Ordinary English dictionary meaning will do for me.
But, Norman, the word is not in any Act relating to employment
contracts.
You never called me Norman. Is that a term of endearment or abuse?
On 13/01/2024 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 13/01/2024 05:59 am, Roland Perry wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
No; it's still assumed that an entirely new vehicle will be roadworthy.
Flanders and Swann: "They've started testing cars now. It started at
10 years, then 5, now three. There's even some talk of having them
tested before they leave the factory."
There has been talk of making the test two-yearly. I wish they'd hurry
up with it. I have a car bought exactly ten years ago with four miles
on the clock and still less than 22,000. A goof half of the nine MOT
tests so far (another due by 31st) have effectively been a waste of
effort and money.
The RAC conducted a survey of the RAC Opinion Panel in August 2022, 55%
of whom felt it was a bad idea to switch the MOT test from annually to
every two years so I don't believe there is sufficient groundswell to
get beyond the "there has been talk of..." phase at present.
As for your low mileage car, unless you are moving it weekly, there is a
risk of flat spots developing on the tyres and rust on the disks which
will affect handling and braking. (And even if you are moving yours
weekly, others in similar circumstances may not appreciate the need to
do so which is why it is safest to test all cars annually.)
Statistically, a third of all cars, vans and small passenger vehicles
fail their initial MOT test. (That's 7.3m vehicles for anyone keeping count.)
8%, (2.4m vehicles), receive a fail where one or more dangerous defects
are found.
88% of all failures where at least one dangerous defect is detected
involve defects detected with the brakes or tyres.
That's over 2.1 million cars that have a fault with the tyres or brakes
that is so serious that the vehicle cannot be driven on the road until
it is repaired.
Finally, whilst the biggest causes of MOT failures has remained
consistent over many years, the proportion of tyre failures has
increased from 10% in 2018-2019 to 12% in 2021-2022.
On 18/01/2024 16:34, JNugent wrote:
A commonly-voiced complaint at the time was that these newer rules were
aimed at making it more difficult for the working man (and working
class) to have a car at all. I think that there is something in that.
But when it failed as a policy (because of increasing real incomes), we
eventually ended up with other low and average income barriers such as
the "Congestion" charge and Khan's ULEZ tax.
We've just avoided the imposition of a Clean Air Zone (but we still have
the ANPR cameras and signage that was installed) so I have the utmost sympathy for those that weren't so fortunate.
On 2024-01-19, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2024 16:34, JNugent wrote:
A commonly-voiced complaint at the time was that these newer rules were
aimed at making it more difficult for the working man (and working
class) to have a car at all. I think that there is something in that.
But when it failed as a policy (because of increasing real incomes), we
eventually ended up with other low and average income barriers such as
the "Congestion" charge and Khan's ULEZ tax.
We've just avoided the imposition of a Clean Air Zone (but we still have
the ANPR cameras and signage that was installed) so I have the utmost
sympathy for those that weren't so fortunate.
Indeed I am jealous that you still get to breathe polluted air,
unlike those of us who live in Boris Johnson's ULEZ "tax" area.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 34:23:09 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,353,328 |