FOAK: Insurance excess when using own car for business visits

We use our cars for company visits and we all have business use
insurance. Employer says they won't cover the insurance excess if we
have a claim whilst driving to \ from a visit in company time.

I can see arguments for and against but what do the assembled hordes think?

Fair or crock of shit? Anyone had the same issue and found a legal
argument against it? Or do we just lie and say we were visiting friends?

Steve

 

Why would the company pay for your mistake?

Which would benefit you how?

 

you accept it as part and parcel of running your own car for business,
and if you have an at fault claim you pay up like an adult.

 

presumably your employer pays you an allowance for using your own car?

This is to cover all running costs including insurance. The fact *you
choose* an insurer with a high excess is not their concern.

 

The allowance is not generous (33 p \ mile) and we have to ass about
claiming back the difference between what we are paid and what the tax
office normally allow.

That is my argument with those grumbling and griping. The biggest
gripers are those with the biggest excess. I run a 6 year old Astra DTi
estate so I'm not about to complain, but others feel the need to run
something flashier and have to pay that excess as a result. However, we
don't get paid enough to run a "nice car" and a cheapo runabout for
company jobs.

The thing is that we have to go to jobs in areas we might be unfamiliar
with, pikey to boot and with far higher traffic densities; something
that I'd personally avoid doing normally. If some uninsured shit-bag
trashes your car, or some passing pikey pedestrian fancies a look inside
your car, you're still responsible for the excess.

Steve

 

If they're your own cars, then of course the company should cover the excess
and if they don't, then don't let them use your car.

I can't see an argument for them not covering your excess when you're
working on their behalf.

It's one way, but is it the best?

 

Usually you would get a monthly sum as well, rates vary for this, expect
£500+.Yup, in fact it never crossed my mind that the employer would pay the
excess until I read this post. My monthly allowance, plus the mileage
rate (crap, but IR makes up a chunk) more than covers the running cost
and depreciation on my Accord. A colleague has an Impreza and hates
using it for work, but tough shit, he chose to buy one.



I was thinking recently about what kind of salaries equate to what type
of business car people drive[1]. Anybody got any ideas? 20-25k -
Mondeo? 25-35k - 3 series? 35-40k - A4? 40-50k X5?

[1] I spend waaaay too much time on motorways.

 

Simply tell them that you're no longer willing to use your own car and
they've got to hire one for you where they pick up all the costs.

 

I'd accept it on my commute to and from work but certainly not if I
was carrying out company business during my normal working hours.

Do people really accept this sort of shit as being normal and is it a
recent idea because it's not something I'd want to accept as part of
my day to day working conditions.

 

Ditto.

I remember getting quite shouty when my camera kit was nicked when I was
abroad on a job, and (first) the company demanded to know what I was
doing carrying X grands' worth of kit around with me and (second)
started muttering about the excess.

It wasn't helped by the fact that our insurers (Zurich) demanded
receipts for everything. They were gently told that they had the
receipts, because all the kit had been bought six months earlier, on our
private house insurance, following a burglary.

 

No idea. It's a decade since I had a company motah, and even then it was
just an Astra estate.

There's no cash benefit in it any more, and I can't take pride in
ownership of something that belongs to my employer or a leasing company.

A company car is just hassle-free motoring these days, IMHO.

 

In twenty years of working for local authorities it certainly was the
norm. They run two scales: "casual user" and "essential user", each
banded on engine size with higher rates for bigger motors, topping out
at 2000cc then and 1600 now, aiui.

Casual was for people who did fewer miles at work, essential was for
over about 4500 miles pa. Casual was a straight allowance per mile,
essential carried a monthly lump sum plus a per mile element at a lower
rate, which dropped off sharply at something like 8k miles.

Anybody in receipt of either allowance had to provide a car when
required and documents were subject to random checking, as insurance
had to be Class 1 with passenger liability cover. Come to that, cars
were subject to car park scrutiny too, and I got a ticking off for
'providing' a Transit - so I wheeled the Jag out instead, which really
pissed my boss off.

Casual rates used to be higher - I recall 60p/mile being bandied about
but I understand they now max out at 45p/mile, having been reduced to
remove the potential "profit element" and obviate interference by the
Revenue, who don't apply taxation for this allowance.

The salient point, however, is that we always had to provide a more
expensive form of insurance than the standard SD+P to include use on
employers business and passenger cover. If we crashed the thing,
whether at work or not, the insurance situation and excess payment was
down to us.

The thing with insurance excess payment is two-pronged:

1. Excess is a gamble: you can get a lower payable premium if you
agree to a greater excess, and therefore you're gambling on getting
cheaper insurance but not crashing and having to fork out.

2. You only have to pay the excess if it's your fault or there's
nobody else to pin it on, like a fire or theft claim.

As to whether the 33p/mile covers all this, that's another can of
worms. The AA publish tables which everybody seems to take as gospel
and if the employer pays at that rate there's effectively no argument.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/petrol2010.pdf

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/diesel2010.pdf

From those tables I can see why there's a wrangle and I've done some
sums but depreciation is the big one that always eludes me, as I never
run vehicles it affects until I weigh them in a have to fork out for
another shed on wheels. However, 33p/mile would cover all my incurred
costs for my 25mpg V6 Vectra working on 6k miles/year.

In conclusion I'd have to suggest it isn't unreasonable and should one
find it so, one should consider future vehicle purchases and especially
insurance selection in this light.

 

It always seemed to be the case at our place that that those people for
whom a car was essential (the officers out on district) only got
'casual' whilst the managers spending more time in the office got
'essential'. I think every one only gets casual now.

There was also the question of insurance for equipment that was being
carried about. On more than one occasion the noise/vibration monitoring
instruments rattling around in the boot were worth far more than the
car. Never managed to drive over a B&K 2209 like some poor unfortunate
from a neighbouring authority. Then there was the temporary contract EHO
who was standing not far from his car taking noise readings in broad
daylight when a scrote jumped in it and drove it off as the silly sod
had left the keys in it. Then he realised that he only had SD&P cover on
his A4 estate. Luckily, he recovered it himself with the aid of some
friendly natives and local knowledge (it ended up parked by the Albion
ground with the keys under a wheel arch). But that's another story.

Quite.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

There's no way to tell - my current employers give all 'essential
business users' an Eco hatchback (was Prius, now Focus Econetic, with
Honda Insights being considered as the next option), whilst 'status'
users get a Merc. C-Class or equivalent. Not all status users are on a
higher salary than essential business users.

My last job paid less money, but came with a better car.

I was considering a job with a big pay rise and fairly significant car
allowance, but didn't go for it in the end, however, I pretty much
decided that I didn't want to pay tax on a 520d, and would have quite
possibly just ordered another Prius had I got it - as it saves anything
from £100 / month upwards.

 

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:51:15 +0000 (UTC), "SIRPip"

snip>

If I was given a lump sum vehicle allowance plus mileage I'd accept
that I was responsible for insurance excess but if I was expected to
just buy a car and run it on 34p per mile (or similar) I'd tell them
to bollocks.

We've just had our allowance for using our own transport cut from 34p
to 25p and I've told our MD that if my van fucked up and I needed to
get somewhere in a hurry I'd hire a car before using one of my bikes
for that money.

 

'fraid it's quite normal. It's not unheard if for companies to claim
back excesses on co cars for fault claims by employees too.

 

From my view point (and probably from yours, come to that) 34ppm would
cover your costs incurred running an older car or small van for work as
the insurance won't cost more than 200 quid, the excess would be
another couple and depreciation would be minimal.

Now, 25p is just taking the piss. At 30mpg, fuel cost alone is ~15ppm
and I doubt 10ppm would cover other expenses. I'd never advocate
subsidising your employer's business unless there was a damn good
reason for it.

The thing is, this whole debate sprang up about excess payments.
Bearing in mind the majority of us would run a car whether we were
required to use it for work or not, then we'd have to absorb the fixed
costs in any case. All you're looking at is an allowance that would
cover you for the miles done on employer's business - leaving out road
tax, purchase cost and interest payments thereto, what you want is cash
for the additional fraction which is the mileage for work. The greater
the work mileage, obviously the cost to you would be less per mile - up
to a point.

So all you need (according to the Revenue) is for your employer to
cover (over the course of a year) the extra insurance premium, fuel
costs and the costs of any extra servicing and any mileage-related
depreciation over and above what you'd incur privately. I've heard of
some horrendous excesses stated on insurance quotes, mind - well into
four figures - but you'd take precautions to avoid that sort of expense.

My ex-missus worked as a surveyor for a Housing Association in the
North-West. Some of their estates were in pretty dire areas and
because of that, their car choice was limited. Nothing that would
stand out was permitted: had to be 4/5 door saloon or hatch and
mass-market fleet types. No Audi, Merc or BMW allowed. She had a
little Volvo hatch, a Pug 205, a Cavalier and a Mondeo - such cars were
typical of her colleagues. Being a fully-funded company car I've no
doubt that these choices were dictated by the need to minimise expenses
like insurance excesses. WRT the OP, this is the route for his
colleagues to follow in order to minimise their liability too.

Hs anybody ever heard of an employer in this situation paying for an
employee's insurance excess?

 

Or you are on the wrong end of a hit and run.

 

I've heard of that. Not in cases of theft or criminal damage, mind.

I've seen leased car drivers weeping into their beards after getting a
bill from the employer, passed on from the lease company for sorting
out stonechips etc. Fucking cheeky, I thought, leasing a car for an
agreed mileage of 20k/year and expecting it to come back pristine after
three years and 55k miles. That led to group inspections of cars about
to go back, followed by mass T-cutting in the car park.

 

(SteveH) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Then there's "This is how much lease money we'll pay per month - feel
free to chip in more if you want a more expensive car, or take the
difference if you're happy to have cheaper."