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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

>Nonsense

A little research may help you understand.

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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.