• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "contractor car insurance claim"

Collapse

  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by fiisch View Post
    The irony.
    I hardly think an autocorrect error provides any sense of irony worth mentioning in this car crash of a thread. But if it makes you happy.......

    Leave a comment:


  • fiisch
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post


    I assume this is you attempting to be facetious but you can't blame anyone for thinking you really mean this. Just makes you look even drafter.
    The irony.

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Originally posted by vwdan View Post
    On the other hand, it sounds like good news for the OP. If insurers can't grasp what we are, then that's their problem.
    Unfortunately, I am sure they would make it our problem. If there is a crack to fall through, the insurers would exploit it to their, as opposed to our, advantage.

    Leave a comment:


  • fiisch
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    Even the most belligerent idiot would have folded in the face of all this and the best you can so is admit it all suggests it's not black and white? Honestly. It beggars belief.
    I made the decisions around the decision whether to void/refuse claims in the instance of non-disclosure for two of the insurers used in the examples provided, so make of that what you will.....

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by fiisch View Post
    I concede that there is an argument to suggest contractors would require business use (it's certainly not black and white)
    It most certainly is. One or more of the activities we could mention might be a bit on the grey side I..e going out to buy a works laptop, but the very basic things we do couldn't make it any more black and white.

    We've sent you links to prove we do pure business travel, links to prove HMRC class it as business travel, links to articles written by legal experts and links to information on other professions that turned out very similar to ours. I really am at a loss to why you still don't think it is black and white.
    We've also pointed out to you the errors in all your assumptions and gaps in knowledge that we didn't need post links for.

    Even the most belligerent idiot would have folded in the face of all this and the best you can so is admit it all suggests it's not black and white? Honestly. It beggars belief.

    I don't mind being a tulip contractor, just so long as my boss doesn't find out....
    I assume this is you attempting to be facetious but you can't blame anyone for thinking you really mean this. Just makes you look even drafter.
    Last edited by northernladuk; 17 October 2018, 12:07.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sub
    replied
    It will be fair to suggest that insurer can refuse contractor's claim for an accident happened while on commute to customer's site even on SDPC policy as such activity require Business Use cover.
    One of my customer's even demanded insurance including Business Use to be produced in order to allow me to claim mileage spent for travel for their business.

    There is certain uncertainty around naming of the policy however. Here is what my says:

    "Business for all"
    Use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and travel between home and permanent place of business or employment. Use for the Policyholder and named drivers in connection with their business or profession, subject to the exclusions below [To summarize, these exclusions are around car hire and racing staff].

    Which is looking as Class 2 definition, but "Class 2" not mentioned anywhere in the documents. One another insurer even wasn't able to quote Business Use classes, they only had Commercial option.

    Leave a comment:


  • fiisch
    replied
    I concede that there is an argument to suggest contractors would require business use (it's certainly not black and white), but in regards to the original point i.e.: would an insurer refuse a claim on these grounds? No, there is too much ambiguity on this subject, and an underwriter would not have depth of understanding to even argue this point.

    Car insurance is riddled with ambiguity - on this same point, should we be declaring our jobs as what we actually do, or company director?

    I don't mind being a tulip contractor, just so long as my boss doesn't find out....

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by WTFH View Post
    And most contractors who run their own limited companies are being paid for attending interviews and claiming the travel on expenses. They are not charging end clients for it, but they are claiming salary and expenses from their own limited company.
    Maybe we should have made this point multiple times earlier on in the thread... Oh.. Hang on..

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by vwdan View Post
    On the other hand, it sounds like good news for the OP. If insurers can't grasp what we are, then that's their problem.
    Well yes, but no. You are relying on the advice from fiisch to come to that conclusion. The same poster that doesn't appear to be able to grasp how basic rules, that are enshrined in legislation and applied for years, works.

    The only safe conclusion that I can see that can be pulled from all this is that any contractor without Business Class insurance is a bit of a pillock and needs to understand what they do a bit better

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by fiisch View Post
    Travelling to an interview is social. You are not being paid for attending, and it is not a journey with any regularity (unless of course you are successful, at which point it'll fall under commuting, if you are travelling to the same place of work).
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Not to us it isn't. We are negotiating a B2B contract between your LTD and the client/agent. It's sales work. Part of our job securing clients and selling our services.
    And most contractors who run their own limited companies are being paid for attending interviews and claiming the travel on expenses. They are not charging end clients for it, but they are claiming salary and expenses from their own limited company.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by fiisch View Post
    A teacher transporting children within the context of work would be an absolute no-no - the potential for enormous PI claims would make this extremely high risk, and most typical insurers wouldn't touch this (I would suggest this would fall under Class 3 Business Use, which for a teacher would be extremely hard to obtain cover for).
    .
    Wrong.

    NUT guidance mentions business use and not category to be fair but if this was as dire as you make it out to be the guidance would be much clearer... and it isn't. In your example no teacher would be able to get insurance and that's just utter pap.

    NUT Guidance
    https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/Ve...367_1_3_A4.pdf

    The mistake you are making (surprise!!) is teachers don't have to carry them as part of their trade so Level 1 is fine.

    A point borne out by the fact we supplied the list in the guidance plus some details scenarios that worried my other half and have had it in writing from both Direct Line and Toyota Insurance these are covered.

    Leave a comment:


  • vwdan
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Not to us it isn't. We are negotiating a B2B contract between your LTD and the client/agent. It's sales work. Part of our job securing clients and selling our services.

    Only a tulip contractor would think what you've suggested.
    On the other hand, it sounds like good news for the OP. If insurers can't grasp what we are, then that's their problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by fiisch View Post
    Travelling to an interview is social. You are not being paid for attending, and it is not a journey with any regularity (unless of course you are successful, at which point it'll fall under commuting, if you are travelling to the same place of work)..
    Not to us it isn't. We are negotiating a B2B contract between your LTD and the client/agent. It's sales work. Part of our job securing clients and selling our services.

    Only a tulip contractor would think what you've suggested.

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by fiisch View Post
    If you complete an insurer proposal form, some insurers will not let you declare that you are unemployed but require commuting/business use, because how can you possibly require these uses if you are unemployed?
    That's the difference between being a permanent employee and a contractor.
    Contractors are still "employed" by their limited company even if they are not contracted out to clients.
    Contractors can still claim a salary from their limited company even if they are not contracted out to clients.
    Contractors aren't unemployed when they are between contracts.

    And this is where your problem lies. You don't seem to know the difference between a permanent employee of a company and a contractor working for clients.

    A substitute teacher who can work for multiple schools is exactly the same as a contractor who can work for multiple clients.

    Leave a comment:


  • fiisch
    replied
    Originally posted by WTFH View Post
    Did your experience include the different types of insurance?

    Here's a couple of random companies and what they say about social, commuting and business use:
    What can I use my car for?
    | Ask a question | 1st CENTRAL Car insurance

    Choosing the right class of use
    Funny you pick those two insurers...... I worked with all types of motor insurance, including commercial and taxi, where usage is far more complicated.

    Travelling to an interview is social. You are not being paid for attending, and it is not a journey with any regularity (unless of course you are successful, at which point it'll fall under commuting, if you are travelling to the same place of work).

    If you complete an insurer proposal form, some insurers will not let you declare that you are unemployed but require commuting/business use, because how can you possibly require these uses if you are unemployed?

    I take the point that with contracting the lines are blurred - if you are on the bench, are you still "employed" or unemployed? I'd suggest the former.

    The point I was making is no insurer in the land would refuse a contractor claim in this particular scenario. I can see some ambiguity, but unless as a contractor you are travelling to multiple sites as part of the same gig, I do not agree that you would need business use for this. The test would be how long a gig was for, and the regularity of travel.

    The spirit of getting individuals to declare commuting vs business use is to identify whether they will be making the same journey at the same times (lower risk), or if they will be travelling on business and therefore more irregularity in their travel patterns.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X