No business insurance - Qaseem azemi
Hello guys. I was recently stopped for making a food delivery from the kebab shop I work in. On the day one of our driver did not turn up on time because his sister had passed away so the boss asked me to quickly make a delivery which was very late and it was a big delivery over 50 quids. As I was about to do the delivery two constables walking by stopped me. I did not lie to them. I told them I work in yeh kebab shop half a mile away and boss asked me to make a quick delivery. He contacted somebody over the phone and they told him to seize my car. Now I am probably looking at 6 points and 300 pound fine. I need some advice please. Should I take yeh case to court and get letter from my work place that I work inside and also I only work there 3 days a week. Part time. Thanks.
No business insurance - skidpan

If you were using your car for delivering food and are not covered for bussiness use you are guilty as charged.

If you plead not guilty and take it to court you will likely as not get a bigger fine.

Your boss should be paying your fine, he asked you to make the delivery.

I suggest you pay up.

No business insurance - Qaseem azemi
Skidpan: I can provide letter from workplace and also when I was delivering I was not wearing my work uniform as I had finished my shift. I was on my way to my mums so yeh boss asked me to deliver. And I am leaving my job this Sunday because me and my boss had argumen about the payment and he refused to pay up. He said he can only provide me a letter for the court.
No business insurance - RT
Skidpan: I can provide letter from workplace and also when I was delivering I was not wearing my work uniform as I had finished my shift. I was on my way to my mums so yeh boss asked me to deliver. And I am leaving my job this Sunday because me and my boss had argumen about the payment and he refused to pay up. He said he can only provide me a letter for the court.

All irrelevant - your use of the car was business, for which you don't seem to be insured - any letter from your employer will only damn you further.

No business insurance - RobJP

As already said by other replies.

You committed an offence. No matter what, you will get points on your licence and a fine.

If you go to court, then the fine (and potentially, number of points you get on your licence) will most likely be higher.

The letter is irrelevant.

No business insurance - SLO76
If what you're saying is true then you've sadly been very unfortunate. Your gaffer should do the decent thing and caugh up but this is the only way you'll avoid that fine I'm afraid. There's no getting round it, in the eyes of the law you committed an offence and this is a common target for the police as I advised on another thread regarding someone who's son intended on doing gardening work.
No business insurance - Qaseem azemi
Thanks for your reply guys.
No business insurance - Bromptonaut

As others say, this looks like an open shut case. No insurance is an absolute offence; no defence only mitigation. Don't think fact that you were 'on your way home' stops it bein business use but if you're tempted by that proposition you need legal advice.

PLenty traffic lawyers out there. Some will give you 20 mins or so free of charge.

Wider question. Do the people employed as delivery drivers have business insurance?

My son is currently delivering pizzas for a national chain. The company arrange third party cover. I suspect this reflects the fact that (a) fast food delivery is up there with jockey or rock god in terms of risk/premuim/refusal to cover and (b) covers them for any comeback in event that they're in frame as employer.

He's had a 'frightener' where a yoof on a bike, unlit and dark clad, bounced of a kerb in front of him. All properly reported by The Lad to Police who've NFA's it unless the yoof comes forward or is traced.

Worrying bit in light of this thread is that employer don't automatically provide written proof of cover or any briefing on how to deal with a police stop in circs described in OP. Not a surprise in light of managment competence in other areas - like getting Stat Sick Pay - but I've told him to make sure he gets proof and keeps it in his car.

No business insurance - Cris_on_the_gas

Assume you had a valid insurance policy for the vehicle you were driving but this was for SD&P and not business use.

The officers had no right to seize your car.

On your certificate of Insurance it states at the bottom " nothing contained in this document affects your right as a third party to make a claim"

Under the Road traffic act 1988 S.143 you must have insurance for third party liabilities.

The officers seized your car under the powers of S.165 of same act.

So the important statement on your Certificate of Motor Insurance states that the Insurance company will pay out on 3rd party risks. Hence the officer cannot invoke his powers under S.165 as S.143 is satisfied.

In the unfortunate situation of you causing 3rd party damage or injury the Insurance company would pay out then try to get the money from you. If you have any assets like property etc this would be at risk.

Indeed you have been foolish not to have the correct cover but you were still covered for 3rd party risks and hence the officer does not have the right to seize your vehicle.

Edited by Cris_on_the_gas on 30/01/2017 at 10:53

No business insurance - Qaseem azemi
That's exactly what a lot of people are telling me. Because my car is SD&P insured. It covers me from work to work place. I honesty do not know why the officer seize my vehicle. I had to pay 170 quid to get back the next day.
No business insurance - Vitesse6

If you have valid insurance on the car I don't see why the police should seize it. I think you need to take all your paperwork to a solicitor for some proper legal advice.

No business insurance - skidpan

That's exactly what a lot of people are telling me. Because my car is SD&P insured. It covers me from work to work place.

If you have valid insurance on the car I don't see why the police should seize it.

The fact is you were using your car for your employees business and you did not have suitable cover. This means you were driving without the correct insurance thus the Police have every right to sieze the car. SD&P does not cover you to drive to and from work, that is SD&P plus home to permanant place of work.

When I worked for organisations that required us to use our cars it was in our contract that we must have business cover. They did checks and no cover was a disciplinary issue. Its a potential serious issue for the employer since if the employee does not have the correct cover a 3rd party could go after them for monies.

Go to court and dig yourself deeper into a hole. You could well end up dragging your employer into the mess and I could not see them being too happy with that.

Like I said before, pay up and learn.

No business insurance - Cris_on_the_gas

The fact is you were using your car for your employees business and you did not have suitable cover. This means you were driving without the correct insurance thus the Police have every right to sieze the car. SD&P does not cover you to drive to and from work, that is SD&P plus home to permanant place of work.

Correct he did not have the correct cover.

However the Police do not in this situation the right to seize the vehicle as previously explained.

He has not compilied with the terms and conditions of his Insurance policy. There fore the Insurance company will not indemify him for any subsequent losses. The Insurance company will pay any claim resulting then sue the policyholder for fraud/non disclosure. As stated before if he has assets they will get them.

Agree he should have got the correct Insurance and he is wrong for not doing so. However from what is stated the Police officers have not exercised their powers under S.165 of the RTA 1988 correctly.

No business insurance - skidpan

However the Police do not in this situation the right to seize the vehicle as previously explained.

On the .gov site it clearly states that the police can seize a vehicle if they think its

"being driven by someone who doesn’t have a proper licence or insurance"

In this case it did not have proper insurance thus thye Police had every right to seize the car.

It also clearly states on the .gov site

"Even if the vehicle itself is insured, if you’re not correctly insured to drive it you could get penalised"

In this case the OP's vehicle was insurred but not correctly so penaties will be incurred.

In law if you do not have the correct cover you are technically uninsurred which means the police can seize away.

No business insurance - Vitesse6

"being driven by someone who doesn’t have a proper licence or insurance"

You could quite easily argue that that sentence means a proper licence. ie a valid licence for the class of vehicle. It does not say proper insurance, it says insurance. It should not be for the police to determine the terms and conditions attaching to a policy. The vehicle was insured.

Any other interpretation could lead to all of us having to prove the reason for our journey to any copper at any time.

I agree that the correct policy should be in force, but any dispute should be a civil matter between policy holder and insurer.

No business insurance - skidpan

I agree that the correct policy should be in force, but any dispute should be a civil matter between policy holder and insurer.

Not being correctly insurred is not a civil matter, its a criminal offence.

All offenders should be fined the appropriate amount with the appropriate points. Ignorance is not a defence.

We all pay extra to cover these offences.

No business insurance - concrete

What a situation. I have to agree that not having insurance cover to make deliveries on a commercial basis is serious. If the worst had happened and the insurers had a full investigation you would have been in very serious trouble indeed. I think you have been naive and your boss is either naive too or just thought he might get away with it this time. Either way it is you who will pay the price with points on your licence, with a great affect on your future insurance premiums. I think your boss should pay any fines or costs. Personally at this stage I would consult a specialist solicitor. If the police have acted contrary to the law in siezing your car and you can launch a successful claim against them, it might make them think about dropping the case if you do the same. It is worth a try. I am not condoning your initial actions but hopefully you have learnt a valuable lesson.In future either use the kebab shop transport( provided that is correctly insured too) or your boss pays the extra for you to extend your cover to make deliveries. Don't take the rsik for the sake of few pounds in premiums. As you have oainfully discovered it is NOT worth it.

Cheers Concrete

No business insurance - No_FM2R

By law you must have cover in place in accordance Road Traffic act.

You did.

The usage of the car is a contractual matter between you and your insurer, and not a matter for the police.

Are you sure your insurane was valid?

No business insurance - skidpan

By law you must have cover in place in accordance Road Traffic act.

You did.

The usage of the car is a contractual matter between you and your insurer, and not a matter for the police.

Are you sure your insurane was valid?

Nonsense. You must have insurance in place that covers you for your vehicles use. That is why there are several categories. If you use your car for business and don't have business cover you are uninsurred and that as we all know is an offence.

And that is a matter for the police.

No business insurance - nortones2

Fast food delivery apparently is not likely to be covered by standard business insurance. Must make specific application for this type of cover, presumably because there could be a higher risk. More inf here: www.centralins.co.uk/blog/2015/11/18/fast-food-del.../

No connection with above company btw.

Edited by nortones2 on 03/02/2017 at 10:49

No business insurance - No_FM2R

>Nonsense

A little research may help you understand.

No business insurance - skidpan

>Nonsense

A little research may help you understand.

So we could all drive round with incorrect cover and be completely legal in the eyes of the law.

What utter bo11ocks.

If its not required why do your insurers provide different cover for different uses.

You sir know nothing.

No business insurance - Middleman

Of course it is not a contractual matter (at least not as far as the criminal offence is concerned). You might as well say that it is merely a contractual matter if somebody other than the named driver(s) is driving. The contractual issues are dealt with when the insurance policy is taken out:

“Do you want cover for business use?”

“No”.

Then no cover for business use is provided and if the vehicle is used for business no insurance is in place. If stopped when driving on business use the vehicle is being used uninsured. The driver is liable to prosecution for No Insurance under S143 of the RTA.

The power to seize a vehicle driven without licence or insurance (Under S165A) is quite straightforward. It says this:

(1) Subsection (5) [the power to seize] applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

[The first does not concern us here]

(3) The second condition is that—

(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,

(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and

(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

In the circumstances described here the vehicle was being driven in contravention of S143 (see above) so seizure is legitimate.

So there's my research. But what would I know?

Edited by Middleman on 02/03/2017 at 23:08

No business insurance - focussed

A reminder of EU motor insurance law:-

DIRECTIVE 2009/103/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Article 14

Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that all compulsory policies of insurance against civil liability arising out of the use of vehicles: (a) cover, on the basis of a single premium and during the whole term of the contract, the entire territory of the Community, including for any period in which the vehicle remains in other Member States during the term of the contract; and (b) guarantee, on the basis of that single premium, in each Member State, the cover required by its law or the cover required by the law of the Member State where the vehicle is normally based when that cover is higher.

No business insurance - Middleman

A reminder of EU motor insurance law:-

(b) guarantee, on the basis of that single premium, in each Member State, the cover required by its law or the cover required by the law of the Member State where the vehicle is normally based when that cover is higher.

So what you are suggesting, then, is that if the OP had an accident that maimed a couple of people for life whilst delivering his kebabs, his insurers (by virtue of the EU Directive you quoted) would meet the claim even though he was not covered for business use.

I don't think so. The purpose of the directive is to ensure that compulsory cover required by law across the member nations is consistent across the Union. It does not mean that insurers must meet claims in circumstances when they have specifically excluded cover for an otherwise valid policy.

The problem explained in this question is widespread. Large numbers of drivers have fallen foul of it in recent years. Many explain that they were "just helping out" when they were caught working as a delivery driver. Whether or not they were and whether or not it was one or a hundred kebabs is immaterial. A normal SD&P policy does not cover them for such activitie. They are just as uninsured as if they had no policy at all because their insurers would not meet any claims arising (which is, after all, the function of insurance, whether compulsory or otherwise). You cannot be "slightly insured" or "insufficiently insured". You either have cover or you do not.

If your contention about the EU Directive is correct then many thousands, if not tens of thousands of drivers have been wrongly convicted or accepted fixed penalties. The fact that none of them, as far as I know, has successfully defended such an allegation in court suggests you are reading more into the Directive than is really there.

Edited by Middleman on 03/03/2017 at 10:27

No business insurance - focussed

"So what you are suggesting, then, is that if the OP had an accident that maimed a couple of people for life whilst delivering his kebabs, his insurers (by virtue of the EU Directive you quoted) would meet the claim even though he was not covered for business use."

Yes - read the EU directive - it specifically says that any insurance taken out within the EU has to meet the legal minimum insurance for any country within the EU.

If you read into it it also says that any exclusion clauses introduced by insurance companies are null and void.

Why can't you understand that?

No business insurance - RobJP

"So what you are suggesting, then, is that if the OP had an accident that maimed a couple of people for life whilst delivering his kebabs, his insurers (by virtue of the EU Directive you quoted) would meet the claim even though he was not covered for business use."

Yes - read the EU directive - it specifically says that any insurance taken out within the EU has to meet the legal minimum insurance for any country within the EU.

If you read into it it also says that any exclusion clauses introduced by insurance companies are null and void.

Why can't you understand that?

What it actually means is that the liability to third parties will be maintained, even in the event of the vehicle not being used in accordance with the policy - "the cover required by law".

So if he'd hit someone - or another vehicle - then the policy would still be in force (as required in law) regards personal or property injury incurred by the other party.

However, UK law states that you can be prosecuted for use of a car not in accordance with your policy.

The two sets of legislation are not mutually exclusive.

No business insurance - Middleman

“If you read into it it also says that any [my emphasis] exclusion clauses introduced by insurance companies are null and void.”

OK so now I have read it and it says no such thing. I imagine the clause you rely on in the EU Directive, which is far more specific than you describe, is this one:

Article 13

Exclusion clauses

1. Each Member State shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that any statutory provision or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy issued in accordance with Article 3 shall be deemed to be void in respect of claims by third parties who have been victims of an accident where that statutory provision or contractual clause excludes from insurance the use or driving of vehicles by:

(a) persons who do not have express or implied authorisation to do so;

(b) persons who do not hold a licence permitting them to drive the vehicle concerned;

(c) persons who are in breach of the statutory technical requirements concerning the condition and safety of the vehicle concerned. However, the provision or clause referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph may be invoked against persons who voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury, when the insurer can prove that they knew the vehicle was stolen.

So, (a) the OP did have authority to drive the vehicle (because he owned it and no other authority was necessary); (b) he did hold a valid licence (presumably) and (c) the condition and safety of the vehicle are not in dispute. So voiding a clause preventing the vehicle’s use on business (or any other clause relating to its use) is not, as far as I can tell, accommodated in the Directive. (Unless there is any other sections of the directive I have missed but I should have thought that all such exclusion clauses would have been mentioned in the same section).

I have to thank RobJP for expanding on my earlier answer. However I must disagree with his conclusion. The “exclusion clause” section of the EU Directive (though seemingly not applicable here) actually says that Member States must take all appropriate measures to ensure that the exclusion clauses defined are actually made void. If they are void then cover is provided and the driver/vehicle is insured.

“However, UK law states that you can be prosecuted for use of a car not in accordance with your policy.”

Yes you can. It’s called driving without insurance contrary to S143 of the Road Traffic Act (which is where we came in). There’s nothing in between. You are either covered or you are not. If you are (because the EU Directive makes void an exclusion clause) then a prosecution for No Insurance cannot succeed. Large numbers of prosecutions for offences such as the one described have succeedeed. It is quite clear that vehicles driven on business when only SD&P cover is in place are uninsured because somebody far brighter than me would have determined otherwise by now.

Edited by Middleman on 07/03/2017 at 13:02

No business insurance - RobJP

The Article 13 makes it clear that an exclusion shall be made void "in respect of claims by third parties"

So you're using your car for business use, in spite of your policy being SDP only. You have an accident.

For the purposes of the third party and their potential claim against you, the policy is still valid - in accordance with Article 13

However, you can be prosecuted for breach of S143.

As I said, the two pieces of law are not mutually exclusive. One is there to protect other innocent parties from the actions of drivers, and establishes that those innocent parties will still have a valid claim against the insurance company, so therefore if (for example) they suffer crippling injuries, or suffer major damage to their vehicle, they will still be able to get compensation or recompense from the insurance company, rather than a person who may have no funds.

The other S143 legislation serves a different 'slant', and ensures that the risk the insurance company takes on (and the premium they may charge for such risk) is related to the risk that has been declared to it.

No business insurance - Middleman

For the purposes of the third party and their potential claim against you, the policy is still valid - in accordance with Article 13

Why? How?

No business insurance - Middleman

And in the UK, of course, Rob, such victims have redress via the Motor Insurers' Bureau Compensation Scheme. I have not read it through but I think the EU Directive makes provision for all member nations to establish similar schemes.

No business insurance - nortones2

Rob: Article 13 is not in itself "law". It all depends on how it has been transposed into UK legislation. I haven't got a reference to cite the UK law, but bear in mind that each State has some discretion (called derogations) in how it is achieved. My point is that the proper section of law, and any subordinate clauses/points of interpretation need to be identified before a full understanding can be achieved.

No business insurance - Middleman

Exactly. It would not be unheard of for the UK to “gold plate” a European Directive when subsuming it into UK law. However, the number of successful prosecutions for No Insurance in these circumstances would seem to indicate that they have not. The offence is driving without the necessary insurance cover required under S143. As I tried to explain, if an exclusion clause was declared void by virtue of the Directive then the policy would be valid. Not only would cover be provided but no prosecution for No Insurance would succeed. There’s no halfway house; you cannot have cover by virtue of the void clause but then be prosecuted for having No Insurance. Such a situation would be absurd.

 

Ask Honest John

Value my car