Read this today and thought, ok if its a van used for work then the fine is legally correct, but he claims his van is only insured for persoanl use, therefor if he is travelling from job to job in it does this not make his insurance invalid?
Fined for smoking in van.
- Thread starter Swordfish
- Start date
Hmmm, im not sure on this one. Yes it is his vehicle to and from work, but its where his work is defined:
If his work is an office which he then gets another vehicle and goes to the property to paint/decorate, then yes, they are in the wrong to fine him.
If his place of work is the property he is decorating and he is carrying his tools / other work stuff, then it could be classed as his working vehicle and they MAY be correct in the fine.
Though on the 2nd point if the car is paid for privately and owned privately (not an asset of his company) then it could still be wrong to fine him.
The other point is it could be insured incorrectly ;]
If his work is an office which he then gets another vehicle and goes to the property to paint/decorate, then yes, they are in the wrong to fine him.
If his place of work is the property he is decorating and he is carrying his tools / other work stuff, then it could be classed as his working vehicle and they MAY be correct in the fine.
Though on the 2nd point if the car is paid for privately and owned privately (not an asset of his company) then it could still be wrong to fine him.
The other point is it could be insured incorrectly ;]
Associate
- Joined
- 22 May 2006
- Posts
- 693
But then again, if you take your laptop home from work one night to do some work should you have different insurance?!?! :S
Thats different, by a long way.
I wouldnt of stopped, only the police can demand you stop.
In uniform
When i was with DHL we used to carry a little sign that said we would only stop for a marked police car and would only get out of the van once we had been escorted to a manned police station.
Interesting points raised here.
My main point was not the fact that he got fined, but more that he thinks he can get away with becasue his vehicle is "only insured for private use and to get me to and from work" Fair enought if he drives to work and then drives home, but as he is self employed I'll wager he is claiming all the petorl/tax/inzurance/repaires etc againts his business making it a company vehicle.
My main point was not the fact that he got fined, but more that he thinks he can get away with becasue his vehicle is "only insured for private use and to get me to and from work" Fair enought if he drives to work and then drives home, but as he is self employed I'll wager he is claiming all the petorl/tax/inzurance/repaires etc againts his business making it a company vehicle.
As I said in the GD thread on the same topic;
With regard to car insurance these are usually the terms;
“Private Use: Use of your car for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and
incidental business use where you are not using your car during your full-time, part-time or casual working period as an integral means of earning your income. [The term earning your income is defined as being required to use your private vehicle as part of your employment conditions].
Business Use: Use of your car during your full-time, part-time or casual working period as an integral means of earning your income that you have told us about and we have agreed to cover. Business Use also includes social, domestic and pleasure use. ”
The phrases do vary slightly ffrom one insurer to another, but in general those are the conditions.
In this case the decorator cannot do his work without the vehicle, (he cannot carry his equipment to his place of work without the van), therefore the use of the vehicle is integral to his job, therefore he should have his van insured for business use.
He should have said to the insurance company when he set up his insurance, exactly how he uses the van then they would set the cover and premium accordingly.
The decorator will now be in trouble if the insurance should be classed as business. Whereas if he had discussed it with them and they had said "Social Domestic and Pleasure" was the right cover they could not then repudiate, unless it was found he had misled originally.
Same as all insurance, you get what you pay for and what you ask for, you only cheat yourself by missleading insurance companies.
With regard to car insurance these are usually the terms;
“Private Use: Use of your car for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and
incidental business use where you are not using your car during your full-time, part-time or casual working period as an integral means of earning your income. [The term earning your income is defined as being required to use your private vehicle as part of your employment conditions].
Business Use: Use of your car during your full-time, part-time or casual working period as an integral means of earning your income that you have told us about and we have agreed to cover. Business Use also includes social, domestic and pleasure use. ”
The phrases do vary slightly ffrom one insurer to another, but in general those are the conditions.
In this case the decorator cannot do his work without the vehicle, (he cannot carry his equipment to his place of work without the van), therefore the use of the vehicle is integral to his job, therefore he should have his van insured for business use.
He should have said to the insurance company when he set up his insurance, exactly how he uses the van then they would set the cover and premium accordingly.
The decorator will now be in trouble if the insurance should be classed as business. Whereas if he had discussed it with them and they had said "Social Domestic and Pleasure" was the right cover they could not then repudiate, unless it was found he had misled originally.
Same as all insurance, you get what you pay for and what you ask for, you only cheat yourself by missleading insurance companies.
If he is the only one who uses that van then the fine is wrong !
"A Welsh Assembly Government spokesman said: "The smoke-free regulations state that a vehicle shall be smoke-free if it is used for work by more than one person, regardless of whether they are in the vehicle at the same time, to protect everyone who uses the vehicle from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke, regardless of when they use the vehicle."
"A Welsh Assembly Government spokesman said: "The smoke-free regulations state that a vehicle shall be smoke-free if it is used for work by more than one person, regardless of whether they are in the vehicle at the same time, to protect everyone who uses the vehicle from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke, regardless of when they use the vehicle."
Yes, otherwise it would technically be illegal to smoke in your own house if you worked on your own from home.
Does that differ in Scotland from England/Wales then?
Also if you did work from home that would be a different situation because its your residence. Like prisoners can smoke in their cells( their official residence) but the officers cant smoke on the premises as its place of work.
Also if you did work from home that would be a different situation because its your residence. Like prisoners can smoke in their cells( their official residence) but the officers cant smoke on the premises as its place of work.