Business Use Car Insurance

[craigwend]

'Class 1 business ' - usage is normally free if you arrange it at time of setting up car insurance, can be more if added later, is that what happened? Can be more money / other business class, as well if she carries clients?

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Bought or leased?

Well told bought, but you never know,

'Class 1 business ' - usage is normally free if you arrange it at time of setting up car insurance, can be more if added later, is that what happened? Can be more money / other business class, as well if she carries clients?

New policy as her existing one was the one who wanted £120 more, so they moved it to the one that charged £40 extra. She doesn't carry clients, but can carry other workers, but it's the 'equipment' although that is only aprons, gloves etc.

Even more reason she should receive the correct rate, its an HMRC guideline...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi.../travel-mileage-and-fuel-rates-and-allowances

I'll let her see that, although I suspect they won't do anything,

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

Because of my daughters job she has to have business use on her car insurance she is not able to do the job without it, it's part of her contract of employment (I'm led to believe) This year it's cost her £120 more than standard insurance, is she able to claim the extra as an expensive/allowance with HMRC?

My wife has it, on my Octavia, when she's using it
As she's visiting multiple clients, assessing, carrying staff, etc...
Plus, as another part of her business, she sometimes visits various Hospitals/Health Trust HQs, around the North of England (even Cardiff, at one point)
I'm sure it only added about £15?

She's employed, visits people in their own home via her own car, maybe the insurance industry is cashing in on her occupation, both she & my SIL did research on pricing before committing to this policy.

She (& business partner) tell staff to update/advise new starters to amend/inform their insurers of the need for that cover

No she is a care worker & travels between clients homes

That's what business my wife owns
Looking at your other postings, it's not her company, as she's not ordered a M-B, neither has the other Director (unless she's not telling me something)
Business is based in the 'WF' postcode area, so again, probably not you?

MIleage is paid. I believe
A mobile phone allowance is made, for calls to Office/clients
Above minimum wage, sorry not sure what ££/hour is (dependant on experience/service time)

 

[Lozz360]

...she is allowed to claim £0.20p per mile.

The often quoted (and paid by employers) £0.45p per mile is what is considered reasonable by HMRC. Your daughter will be able to claim the tax paid on the difference.

 

[Drago]

Jeez. You can claim 20p/M on a bicycle!

 

[Levo-Lon]

Minimum wage care worker, the service is in crisis, although the boss has just bought a brand new Merc,

Private then lol there usually run by greedy sods.

I get 45p a mile for training trips ..care home.
Tho the staff here get more than the small or council run providers.

 

[spen666]

If she just travels between her own home and a client’s home rather than between multiple clients’ homes then could that be classified as commuting?

I occasionally need to drive to a client’s office from home and my car insurance companies have always classified that as commuting.

PS. Commuting to a single place of work doesn’t mean you have to commute to the same place of work every time, it just means you can’t commute between multiple places of work such as visiting multiple clients.

I wouldn't like to be arguing your case before the magistrates when facing a no insurance charge

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I wouldn't like to be arguing your case before the magistrates when facing a no insurance charge

Would a magistrate get involved, I would have thought it more likely that it would just be an argument between them & their insurance company. I know that I occasionally drive to the train station once, maybe twice a year to go down to the Hell hole for meetings, if ever I was unfortunate to have an accident on the way I know I would never admit it was on a business journey.

 

[spen666]

Would a magistrate get involved, I would have thought it more likely that it would just be an argument between them & their insurance company. I know that I occasionally drive to the train station once, maybe twice a year to go down to the Hell hole for meetings, if ever I was unfortunate to have an accident on the way I know I would never admit it was on a business journey.

No insurance is a criminal offence.

All prosecution have to prove is you were driving car, it's up to you to prove you were insured

 

[Deleted member 26715]

No insurance is a criminal

Who said I don't have insurance?

 

[toffee]

No insurance is a criminal offence.

All prosecution have to prove is you were driving car, it's up to you to prove you were insured

Not quite true. They will have to prove that the insurance company would not pay out on a 3rd party claim which is the only bit you have to have under the Road Traffic act. It would be hard for the insurance company to get out of paying this part. They may come after you for the money though if you have broken the terms of your policy.

 

[spen666]

Not quite true. They will have to prove that the insurance company would not pay out on a 3rd party claim which is the only bit you have to have under the Road Traffic act. It would be hard for the insurance company to get out of paying this part. They may come after you for the money though if you have broken the terms of your policy.

Toffee, you better tell the judicial system they have got it wrong then...

The law is as I have stated it.

 

[spen666]

Who said I don't have insurance?

No one. If police can prove you were driving, you have to prove you were insured. Police do not have to show you were not insured.

Burden of proof is on driver to prove they were insured

 

[toffee]

No one. If police can prove you were driving, you have to prove you were insured. Police do not have to show you were not insured.

Burden of proof is on driver to prove they were insured

And if you are insured you will be on the MID. What your policy terms are is between you and the insurance company not the police.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

No one. If police can prove you were driving, you have to prove you were insured. Police do not have to show you were not insured.

Burden of proof is on driver to prove they were insured

confused as to what your point is