Use of private cars for home deliveries

[edwin_m]

"Admit liability or we'll mention those parcels to our insurer"?

 

[Meerkat]

"Admit liability or we'll mention those parcels to our insurer"?

It would be ”admit liability or I get the plod down and point out those parcels”, but you would want that admission in writing and their insurers might still not accept it.

 

[E27007]

Until something goes wrong, and your insurer refuses to pay out

Or the Police stop you, they notice the car loaded with the delivery items, then look into the details of your policy, if the Police believe your policy does not cover the delivery work, your car is seized and you are reported for driving without insurance.

 

[styles]

Or the Police stop you, they notice the car loaded with the delivery items, then look into the details of your policy, if the Police believe your policy does not cover the delivery work, your car is seized and you are reported for driving without insurance.

I know someone who has been crashed into twice been crashed into (other driver at fault each time), and he's had takeaway food in the car for a delivery. He's just moved it into the boot and police haven't said a thing.

Personally, I think companies who employ delivery drivers, or contract them to "self-employed", should be legally responsible for any delivery driver/rider on their books who doesn't have insurance covering their work. It should be checked at least annually, along with driving licence checks.

 

[Meerkat]

Personally, I think companies who employ delivery drivers, or contract them to "self-employed", should be legally responsible for any delivery driver/rider on their books who doesn't have insurance covering their work. It should be checked at least annually, along with driving licence checks.

Can you claim they are self employed and insist on things like that?

 

[styles]

Can you claim they are self employed and insist on things like that?

Absolutely. Uber etc already do verify their contractors' driving eligibility for example.

But because they are "self-employed", they have a right to substitution, so that falls out the window when they share accounts.

They can certainly check vehicles their contractors are using - nothing in DPA would prevent that.

 

[Meerkat]

Absolutely. Uber etc already do verify their contractors' driving eligibility for example.

But because they are "self-employed", they have a right to substitution, so that falls out the window when they share accounts.

They can certainly check vehicles their contractors are using - nothing in DPA would prevent that.

My understanding was that if you tell a subcontractor how to do it, and what to do it with, then they were an employee, not a subbie.

 

[Egg Centric]

Absolutely. Uber etc already do verify their contractors' driving eligibility for example.

But because they are "self-employed", they have a right to substitution, so that falls out the window when they share accounts.

They can certainly check vehicles their contractors are using - nothing in DPA would prevent that.

My understanding was that if you tell a subcontractor how to do it, and what to do it with, then they were an employee, not a subbie.

Really we need some sort of "semi self employed" category for the gig economy. I think this would be too much intrusion into the business of someone who is genuinely self employed but we also need to recognise that gig economy workers are not really "properly" self employed either. I don't know what this looks like and I don't trust the government to come up with it either (more likely to just ban gig economy entirely which would be a bad thing) but I think it's the only proper solution.

In my own industry IR35 and how it affects IT Contractors is a nightmare. We have to be very careful when we use them, as do they.

 

[OrionHi]

Or the Police stop you, they notice the car loaded with the delivery items, then look into the details of your policy, if the Police believe your policy does not cover the delivery work, your car is seized and you are reported for driving without insurance.

I don't think that's correct, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice etc. but as far as I understand it, you still have an insurance policy, you just may not be following the policy's terms. This may allow an insurer to void the policy, but until they have taken steps to do so, it is still in force, and the insurer will still have obligations under section 151(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Take a read of Linse v North Wales Police [2020] EWHC 1288 (Admin) for example, which is quite an interesting case to read anyway for different reasons! (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1288.html):

In the specific instance of motor vehicle insurance, the editors of MacGillivray on Insurance Law 14th edition at paragraph 31-008 refer to provisions of the 1988 Act and say this:

"When a policy is voidable, for instance on account of misrepresentation, it remains "in force" for the purposes of s.143 unless and until the insurer takes steps to avoid the policy as provided in s.152."

Of course if you did it knowingly when obtaining the insurance, you could still be prosecuted for other potential offences, such as fraudulently obtaining insurance and you may be on the hook for costs in the event of an accident.

Edit: The above may not apply in cases like this, see below comments.

 

[E27007]

I don't think that's correct, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice etc. but as far as I understand it, you still have an insurance policy, you just may not be following the policy's terms. This may allow an insurer to void the policy, but until they have taken steps to do so, it is still in force, and the insurer will still have obligations under section 151(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Take a read of Linse v North Wales Police [2020] EWHC 1288 (Admin) for example, which is quite an interesting case to read anyway for different reasons! (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1288.html):

Of course if you did it knowingly when obtaining the insurance, you could still be prosecuted for other potential offences, such as fraudulently obtaining insurance and you may be on the hook for costs in the event of an accident.

A TV documentary of the Police going about their duties.
A woman driver was stopped, she was delivering a takeaway meal, her insurance policy did not cover food delivery, car possessed by Police and she was fined several hundred pounds and points on her licence.

 

[OrionHi]

A TV documentary of the Police going about their duties.
A woman driver was stopped, she was delivering a takeaway meal, her insurance policy did not cover food delivery, car possessed by Police and she was fined several hundred pounds and points on her licence.

I think you may be correct actually that Linse v North Wales Police doesn't apply here, there's a difference between not being covered for the specific risk under the insurance certificate vs making a misrepresentation at the time of obtaining the insurance but still being covered by the insurance certificate.

I haven't looked into this too deeply, but I came across this case which covers this different issue which might be worth a read - Sedgefield Borough Council v Crowe & Anor [2008] EWHC 1814 (Admin) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1814.html).

TL;DR insurance law is complicated, and I think those smart enough to argue the point in court would probably already have the correct insurance in the first place!

 

[E27007]

An insurance policy must cover the use of the car on the journey, eg commuting.
My car insurance was for Social domestic and Pleasure excluding commuting to and from work, my choice, I did not commute to and from work by car.
Here is a Youtube link, a driver of a car driving on a commuting journey, stopped by the Police, his insurance did not cover commuting, the police seized the car for the offence

Car seized by Police, driver commuting with SDP no-commuting cover

When I retired, informing the insurer of my retired status, the insurer then imposed " commuting to a fixed place of work" cover to SDP cover to the policy, despite my protests and request for removal , there was no reduction in premium to be gained by the removal of commuting cover.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When I retired, informing the insurer of my retired status, the insurer then imposed " commuting to a fixed place of work" cover to SDP cover to the policy, despite my protests and request for removal , there was no reduction in premium to be gained by the removal of commuting cover.

It isn't unusual for Business Class 1 to be free for some occupations. It has been for me whenever I have been with Direct Line.

If it's at no cost why would you not want it?

 

[E27007]

It isn't unusual for Business Class 1 to be free for some occupations. It has been for me whenever I have been with Direct Line.

If it's at no cost why would you not want it?

There had been a small reduction in premium, to the praise of fellow members of the Ebenezer Scrooge Appreciation Society. praise which turned to horror following retirement and I found the wasteful cover for commuting was imposed and the reduction in premium could no be longer facilitate gloating and miserly introspection.

 

[zwk500]

A TV documentary of the Police going about their duties.
A woman driver was stopped, she was delivering a takeaway meal, her insurance policy did not cover food delivery, car possessed by Police and she was fined several hundred pounds and points on her licence.

Assuming her insurance policy did cover her for ordinary driving, could she have simply left the takeaway with the police/binned it (to avoid 'bribing' the police imaging), kept the car and sorted out the implications with the delivery service separately? Or is it the case that once the offence has been committed, the police can/will take your car even if you then bring yourself back within your policy?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Assuming her insurance policy did cover her for ordinary driving, could she have simply left the takeaway with the police/binned it (to avoid 'bribing' the police imaging), kept the car and sorted out the implications with the delivery service separately? Or is it the case that once the offence has been committed, the police can/will take your car even if you then bring yourself back within your policy?

Yes, the offence has been committed and so the relevant penalty is applicable.

"Sorry Officer, I was doing 100mph in a 20 limit but I've stopped now so that's OK, isn't it?" - er, no.

 

[BingMan]

A TV documentary of the Police going about their duties.
A woman driver was stopped, she was delivering a takeaway meal, her insurance policy did not cover food delivery, car possessed by Police and she was fined several hundred pounds and points on her licence.

She could have claimed that the take away meal in the car was for her own supper.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, the offence has been committed and so the relevant penalty is applicable.

"Sorry Officer, I was doing 100mph in a 20 limit but I've stopped now so that's OK, isn't it?" - er, no.

The police don't seize your car for speeding though (unless you've done something on the scale of your example). You get pulled over, written up, then told to complete your journey within the speed limit. Similar things happen if a vehicle is overweight - you get pulled up, have to offload into another vehicle or the roadside until you are legal, then can continue on your journey, ticket in hand.
I have also seen fly-on-the-wall shows (a long time ago, mind) where people have been stopped for no insurance and have been given 10 minutes to arrange legal cover - now with points pending, of course - to continue their journeys. Usually this was done for people with children in the back of the car that would otherwise be seized, and had a strong suggestion of allowing the officer to get back on patrol rather than waiting an hour for the tow truck. So I can also see why this discretion would not be exercised for somebody delivering takeout when they weren't properly covered.

Considering those examples, it's not unreasonable to suggest that given the car *is* legal to drive, that once the infringing set of circumstances has been removed (by binning the takeaway), then they would be reported for not having proper insurance but allowed to continue on their way under their now legal insurance.
However it's also not a surprise to me that the police are choosing to deal rather firmly with uninsured drivers.

 

[E27007]

The police don't seize your car for speeding though (unless you've done something on the scale of your example). You get pulled over, written up, then told to complete your journey within the speed limit. Similar things happen if a vehicle is overweight - you get pulled up, have to offload into another vehicle or the roadside until you are legal, then can continue on your journey, ticket in hand.
I have also seen fly-on-the-wall shows (a long time ago, mind) where people have been stopped for no insurance and have been given 10 minutes to arrange legal cover - now with points pending, of course - to continue their journeys. Usually this was done for people with children in the back of the car that would otherwise be seized, and had a strong suggestion of allowing the officer to get back on patrol rather than waiting an hour for the tow truck. So I can also see why this discretion would not be exercised for somebody delivering takeout when they weren't properly covered.

Considering those examples, it's not unreasonable to suggest that given the car *is* legal to drive, that once the infringing set of circumstances has been removed (by binning the takeaway), then they would be reported for not having proper insurance but allowed to continue on their way under their now legal insurance.
However it's also not a surprise to me that the police are choosing to deal rather firmly with uninsured drivers.

Your opinion is noted for removing the infringement, changing the situation and therefore not seizing the car, however, the woman was her worst enemy , sorely trying the patience of the Police, a screechy shouty "Little Miss Angry", zero remorse, accusing the Police of making a "big thing " over nothing.
With less hostility and a better attitude to the Police, she may have been received only well-intended advice about needing a change of insurance to cover delivery journeys, instead she found herself in court.