Commercial car insurance.

Bikerman2019

Is anyone aware of general outcomes when summonsed, for someone driving their car, on private insurance, while doing deliveries. In these bad times Food, parcels, etc etc etc.


If you get stopped and summonsed for not having commercial insurance, what are typical outcomes.


Thanks folks.

Claw Hammer

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Is anyone aware of general outcomes when summonsed, for someone driving their car, on private insurance, while doing deliveries. In these bad times Food, parcels, etc etc etc.


If you get stopped and summonsed for not having commercial insurance, what are typical outcomes.


Thanks folks.

The vehicle is insured so it should not result in a summons for not having commercial insurance. The correct summons would be for obtaining insurance by fraud as in telling the insurer the vehicle was for private use and then using the vehicle for commercial reasons.
In the event of an incident the insurer would have to pay out and could then sue you for the outlay.

Bikerman2019

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The vehicle is insured so it should not result in a summons for not having commercial insurance. The correct summons would be for obtaining insurance by fraud as in telling the insurer the vehicle was for private use and then using the vehicle for commercial reasons.
In the event of an incident the insurer would have to pay out and could then sue you for the outlay.

Would that not assume the vehicle is solely for deliveries? I am thinking Mary is using her spare time while kids at school to deliver parcels or food as a side line. So the insurance would have been taken out in good faith, but with covid or financial circumstances changing the situation, the car is being used for a different purpose now, perhaps coming under usage for hire and reward?


If Mary was stopped with 30 parcels in her car, doing deliveries in her spare time, and gardai noticed, could they indeed prosecute for driving without (appropriate) insurance, technically no insurance ?


P.S. There is no mary or parcels!

seagull

Once she started using her car for more than just social use, Mary should have notified her insurer. It's not only if the car is used exclusively for commercial purposes, it's if it's being used for any commercial purposes.

Bikerman2019

seagull wrote: »

Once she started using her car for more than just social use, Mary should have notified her insurer. It's not only if the car is used exclusively for commercial purposes, it's if it's being used for any commercial purposes.

I agree. So the crux of the issue is, if Mary got a summons for no insurance / or no relevant insurance, are there any previous experiences in the public domain, that could indicate a likely outcome?

wonski

I remember Gardaí targeting deliveroo drivers and the likes in the past. Don't remember what the actual charge was, but I believe similar to using a vehicle for commercial activity without appropriate insurance cover.

When covid hit some insurers automatically added commercial element to the private policies, but I would read small print before assuming it included food delivery (have policy with 123 and they did it in March or April I think).

Bikerman2019

wonski wrote: »

I remember Gardaí targeting deliveroo drivers and the likes in the past. Don't remember what the actual charge was, but I believe similar to using a vehicle for commercial activity without appropriate insurance cover.

When covid hit some insurers automatically added commercial element to the private policies, but I would read small print before assuming it included food delivery (have policy with 123 and they did it in March or April I think).

This is the idea I actually had in mind. If johnny needed to make a few quid for christmas and started something like justeat on a saturday night, what would any likely charges be if stopped by a garda for insurance issues. I was talking to someone and they said they were stopped for not having insurance for the use they had.


Accordingly, what would the likely consequences be for this? Any previous instances anyone can think of?

Claw Hammer

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Would that not assume the vehicle is solely for deliveries? I am thinking Mary is using her spare time while kids at school to deliver parcels or food as a side line. So the insurance would have been taken out in good faith, but with covid or financial circumstances changing the situation, the car is being used for a different purpose now, perhaps coming under usage for hire and reward?


If Mary was stopped with 30 parcels in her car, doing deliveries in her spare time, and gardai noticed, could they indeed prosecute for driving without (appropriate) insurance, technically no insurance ?


P.S. There is no mary or parcels!

It is not "no insurance" because the insurer will have to pay any injured third party. Mary is simply in breach of contract. Mary signed a contract which requires her to inform the insurerat any timeduring the currency of the policy if there are any changes in her circumstances such as would cause the insurer to re-appraise the risk. As soon as she decides to start delivering she is obliged to contact her insurer. She is committing a fraud if she does not. The correct charge is obtaining insurance by fraud contrary Section 64 of the Road Traffic Act rather than driving without insurance contrary to Section 56.

GM228

If you are using a vehicle for an activity not covered by your insurance policy you can be prosecuted for driving with no insurance even though you have a valid policy of insurance otherwise.

There is a body of case law on the matter, but the recent High Court judicial review case Ighovojah vs Judge Smyth & DPP [2016] IEHC 505 gives the best read on the matter, the Ighovojah case gave approval to the UK High Court Mangal Singh vs Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] EWHC 522 case which deals with the matter where a taxi driver was convicted for driving with no insurnce even though he had a valid policy as his policy didn't cover that activity.

And here's a Garda Tweet where vehicles have been seized for such:-

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/891259706957811712?s=20

There is also ECJ case law (would have to look up the specific case) confirming this is considered a valid driving without insurance charge.

Eggs For Dinner

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is not "no insurance" because the insurer will have to pay any injured third party. Mary is simply in breach of contract. Mary signed a contract which requires her to inform the insurerat any timeduring the currency of the policy if there are any changes in her circumstances such as would cause the insurer to re-appraise the risk. As soon as she decides to start delivering she is obliged to contact her insurer. She is committing a fraud if she does not. The correct charge is obtaining insurance by fraud contrary Section 64 of the Road Traffic Act rather than driving without insurance contrary to Section 56.

Do not confuse the insurers obligation to pay an innocent 3rd party, with valid cover being in place. If you breach your policy conditions, insurers can refuse indemnity and pursue you for their outlay

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

If you are using a vehicle for an activity not covered by your insurance policy you can be prosecuted for driving with no insurance even though you have a valid policy of insurance otherwise.

There is a body of case law on the matter, but the recent High Court judicial review case Ighovojah vs Judge Smyth & DPP [2016] IEHC 505 gives the best read on the matter, the Ighovojah case gave approval to the UK High Court Mangal Singh vs Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] EWHC 522 case which deals with the matter where a taxi driver was convicted for driving with no insurnce even though he had a valid policy as his policy didn't cover that activity.

And here's a Garda Tweet where vehicles have been seized for such:-

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/891259706957811712?s=20

There is also ECJ case law (would have to look up the specific case) confirming this is considered a valid driving without insurance charge.

https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/4aad3924-d8d6-43d1-a641-13e767097cff/2020_IEHC_362.pdf/pdf

This case has a different take on it.

Claw Hammer

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Do not confuse the insurers obligation to pay an innocent 3rd party, with valid cover being in place. If you breach your policy conditions, insurers can refuse indemnity and pursue you for their outlay

https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/4aad3924-d8d6-43d1-a641-13e767097cff/2020_IEHC_362.pdf/pdf

The fact that the insurer can pursue its policyholder does not mean a criminal offence has taken place.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/4aad3924-d8d6-43d1-a641-13e767097cff/2020_IEHC_362.pdf/pdf

This case has a different take on it.

not that different. It boils down to the specific wording of the policy. If the policy says that the insured is not to undertake any commercial activity with the vehicle then they can be prosecuted for no insurance.

. Firstly, in future
prosecutions of this type, assuming that a certificate is produced, it will be necessary for
the prosecution to prove the breach of a condition of the policy of insurance by some form
of admissible evidence

In that case the policy document was not submitted to court so the court could not determine that such a condition existed in the policy. Therefore they could not be found guilty of driving without insurance.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/4aad3924-d8d6-43d1-a641-13e767097cff/2020_IEHC_362.pdf/pdf

This case has a different take on it.

It will all boil down to the facts of the case, and in particular the T&Cs of your policy.

The long held assumption that a valid policy of insurance in force holding the insurer third party liable will absolve any charge of driving without insurance is an incorrect assumption.

Eggs For Dinner

Claw Hammer wrote: »

https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/4aad3924-d8d6-43d1-a641-13e767097cff/2020_IEHC_362.pdf/pdf

The fact that the insurer can pursue its policyholder does not mean a criminal offence has taken place.

Did I say it did?