A wee warning a mate of mine has ended up in a spot of bother with the insurance after a minor accident that wasnt his fault.... he drives a privately owned vehicle and works for a company that has a shared car park with 2 other firms and to identify which company employees cars are with in the car park they each have a a diferent coloured sticker approx 5inches wide (no bigger than a dealer sticker) with the company name logo and web address in the rear window.

It now transpires that the insurance company he is with classes having a sticker with your work's web addy on as being business use and as such he should of declared that to the insurance company.... (he was insured for Social Domestic and Pleasure including commuting but not business use):eek: and isnt sure whether the insurance company are playing silly games or not....

That's nonsense. Let his company draft a letter to the insurance company stating the use of the sticker and have it signed by the company director. Unless it is specifically mentioned in his insurance policy (which he should have), then they don't have a leg to stand on.

does sound like rubbish to me, business use is for travelling between sites, carrying goods or for providing a service from your vehicle not for having a sticker otherwise should everyone that has a briskoda.net sticker by telling their insurance company, or those with dealer stickers?

Which trashy insurance firm is that?

Could also be the third parties firm is trying it on.

OMG, I better take out my Monkey Sanctuary sticker.

Another vote for "they haven't got a leg to stand on".

Aside from "how did they know" , it's just a normal car park pass and doesn't constitute business use.

If he had large banners stuck down the side and was paid by his employers to advertise in this way , *then* it would be business use

the guy's boss sent an e-mail to both the guy's and the third party's insurance company (which both happened to be the same one) stating the reasoning behind the stickers and recieved the a reply saying that they consider any advertising that is connected with the insured business to be business use whether its just a small sticker or a car covered in logos its still driving for business use even though the insured is not receiving money for the service

WTF?

So every driver with their dealer stickers is automatically on business use? I'd love to see them proove it in court! I'd CC any future correspondance with trading standards and BBC watchdog!

Which insurance firm so we know who to avoid.

Take them to the insurance ombudsman. They'll soon reconsider

WTF?

So every driver with their dealer stickers is automatically on business use? I'd love to see them proove it in court! I'd CC any future correspondance with trading standards and BBC watchdog!

Which insurance firm so we know who to avoid.

NO the person had stickers which had the web address of their place of work on their private car that im talking about here.... and this person's place of work was not in the motor trade...

i guess the insurance companies problem was that the person was advertising his place of work... there for he was using his vehicle for business use...

i agree with the doctor, go to the ombudsmen as they will hate that and have to pay for any thing they have done wrong and could get into trouble.

NO the person had stickers which had the web address of their place of work on their private car that im talking about here.... and this person's place of work was not in the motor trade...

i guess the insurance companies problem was that the person was advertising his place of work... there for he was using his vehicle for business use...

But how did this sticker even come to light with the insurance company?

It's not something they normally check by default, so the question is who brought it to their attention and why?

How big is this sticker we're talking about?

*reconsiders placing Brskoda Sticker in back window, which arrived today*

the sticker came to light because the insurance assesor (sp?) chap had been taking pictures of the rear of the car where the "dealer sized sticker" was and asked the person what its signigance was..... the cars owner told him "oh thats the place i work" not thinking it was gonna cause a problem.....

the whoe thing to me is stupide and ive told my mate that....

the guy's boss sent an e-mail to both the guy's and the third party's insurance company (which both happened to be the same one)

And there, in the section I have quoted, is the revealing part.

Insurance companies do so very much like to try and claim their losses back from someone. In this instance, they are going to have to cough up for the costs of both cars and in the typical way in which insurance companies are bereft of any sort of moral integrity, they are trying to reduce their losses.

I am in agreement with others here, from a legal perspective, they have not got a leg to stand on, and I have little doubt that if it went to court, they would lose.

I wouldn't bother with the ombudsman, for that will take some time. I'd kick off straight away with a solicitors letter that also sought to recoup any legal costs I incurred fighting the insurers, along with any material costs and compensation for inconvenience I might accrue.

Couldn't agree more.

He wasn't at fault , and he should be claiming from the other driver's insurance policy and not his own - the fact that he is insured with the same company is neither here nor there.

Even if having a sticker in the window constitued business use for which he wasn't covered (which it doesn't) , then all that would mean is that *his* insurance policy was invalid at the time and doesn't remove the obligation for the other driver's policy to pay out.

Which insurance firm BTW?

Come on, name and shame.....

one with the nodding dog....

trouble is that the insurance company has voided his insurance and therefore he was driving uninsured....

Royal Bank of Scotland then, aka Direct Line, aka Churchill.

Not a leg to stand on.

Threaten them with the ombudsman if they don't retract and if you have to do it, then they will have to pay £500 whatever the outcome. The outcome is however obvious, as it is only a parking permit.

And they wonder why people drive round with no insurance!!

one with the nodding dog....

trouble is that the insurance company has voided his insurance and therefore he was driving uninsured....

Due to the sticker in the window?

And they advised him in writing as to the reason?

The Ombardsman will eat them alive. Ohhhhh Yessssss

Due to the sticker in the window?

And they advised him in writing as to the reason?

The Ombardsman will eat them alive. Ohhhhh Yessssss

I know it sounds daft but the sticker by itself was not the issue it was the fact that the stickers was advertising his place of work that was the problem.....

I can't begin to understand the world we live in..... does that mean we have to remove the "Briskoda" stickers next.....?

I can't begin to understand the world we live in..... does that mean we have to remove the "Briskoda" stickers next.....?

Only if insured with the same group shamed above.

Only if u are being employed by briskoda.....

The Sticker caused the problem because of the fact it was advertising the guys place of work and the insured was getting free parking for the car as a result so therefore was being classed as business use of the vehicle