Posted By Steve Swann A policy has been negotiated with our insurers that gives fully comprehensive cover for authorised drivers to use their own car on company business. Our director responsible for health and safety has raised the following issue: If a company employee on company business has an accident because for example his tyres were bald would the director ( or Company) be responsible if someone was badly injured? Part of the authorisation procedure would be a signed statement stating that the car owner would check his car daily if using it on company business.

Posted By Ken Taylor In road traffic type legal action, drivers seem to be held responsible for the condition of their vehicles as far as evident faults that reasonable drivers ought to have checked and dealt with (like the condition of tyres and operation of lights). They will also be expected to have their vehicles maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's standards. In the example you give, it would seem most unlikely that the employer would be regarded as liable unless there was evidence that the fault was known to the employer prior to the related incident but the employer insisted upon the use of the vehicle in that condition or decided to allow its use. I would suggest that a requirement for regular servicing and maintenance in a safe condition be added to the requirement for daily checks in your conditions for use of employees' vehicles for the employer's business.

Posted By jackw. Why the exta insurance. I use my car fo travelling between sites and claim expenses/mileage ( i don't carry any goods). I use my own insurance and just let them know that I require business use on my policy. most insurance companies will do this without any fuss, although some do charge a little extra on the policy. As far as i am aware the driver is responsible for ensuring a car is safe, road worthy etc.

Posted By Cathy Ricketts We have a number of employees who use their private vehicles for work purposes. It is part of their contract of employment that they are insured for business use. It this involves additional premium and they can produce documented evidence of this then we pay the additional cost. The additional cost premium seems to occur mostly with the under 25 age group most other insurance companies dont make an additional charge to the premium for this cover. Employees sign a declaration when they use their case for business purposes and all our procedures relating to driving state that the car must be maintained in a roadworthy condition.

Posted By Cathy Ricketts Totally agree it will depend on what activities you are carying out when driving, which part of the country you live in and how far you drive. It is also very important that employees are honest with the insurance company about the activities they carry out when applying for any quotes as this may result in non payment in the event of a claim if it is found out they have been less than honest.

Posted By Peter J Williams The above discussion is an echo of a thread posted a couple of months ago. This was eventually blocked because of unseemly remarks about a reasonable debate. I hope that this discussion can continue to the seemly satisfaction of all. The insurance angle is simple. The insurers will take the extra minor risk. Maintenance can be covered by the employee declaring on every mileage claim that the car is fit for the road, maintained in accordance with manufacturers' schedules, and has valid MoT certification at the time of the claim. It should be made clear that an erroneous claim is a case of gross misconduct and would be addressed accordingly. If an employee uses his/ her car for Company business without making a regular claim, a request can be made to complete a form declaring the fitness of the vehicle. Hope that helps. Peter

Posted By Brett Day Stuart, I used to visit construction sites and as such needed full class 3 cover which aint cheap. Having said that a collegue had class 1 cover and he thought that as he didn't park on site but in the street adjacent to site he would be ok. His car was pranged and the insurers refused to pay up as in the T&C of the policy parking in a street adjacent to a site was deemed to be on site. Ouch. Another reason why I go for company cars. As for checks I've had the initial license check when I joined the company, then the most thourough company did insurance checks six monthly, they had to be notified of the MOT and tax due dates and they were checked, and each monthly expense sheet had a declaration that stated that my licence was still current and valid and that I had not knowingly commited any offences under the Road Traffic Act.

Posted By Mike There have been a number of these threads recently. It would be interesting to compare the policies described with those operated by HSE for their own staff using private cars during working hours. Advanced driver training available – Yes, voluntary. Written policy on max. driver hours, rest stops etc. – Yes. Alternative lease cars available for high mileage drivers – Yes. Alternative hire cars available for short periods – Yes. Business insurance required – Yes, Class 1 (in connection with the business.. etc), Class 2 or Class 3 not required. Insurance declaration by staff – Yes, before first travel and certificate normally checked at least once by countersigning line manager at first expenses claim. Regular insurance certificate checks – No, only by self-declaration on claim. Regular licence checks – No, but a line manager responsibility to know of disqualification. Regular roadworthiness, MOT certificate checks – No, only by self-declaration on claim that insurance conditions are fulfilled. Can insurers ever claim accident costs against employer – No, there is a Crown agreement with the list of insurers that must be used. Could HSE be held responsible in law for a traffic accident involving staff in working hours – I pass, IANAL, but it could be argued that HSE have done all that is reasonably practicable. HSE line managers have a responsibility to discourage high-mileage private car use when there are alternatives.

Posted By Mike After consultation - any lawful mobile phone use is not banned. On the other topics HSE policy for its driving staff is basically indistinguishable from INDG382. Responsibility is placed on immediate line managers to do checks of licences/certificates etc. based on personal knowledge of the individual. It's not a box ticking exercise by a central function. RTA and near miss data is collected centrally. Post-RTA training is available. Private car expenses are restricted to a lower rate for journeys over a certain limit, so there is an economic incentive not to use them more than absolutely necessary.

Posted By Mike Ian I can't go into details. The recommendations you mention are sensible and are taken into account but there is a difference between advice freely distributed to all and edicts. The mileage limitation for full rate expenses applies to all journeys and there are not supposed to be any unnecessary ones ! It's the line manager who decides when checking the claims, but approved claims that are in some way unusual may be audited centrally. Basically the decision is just is it cheaper/time saving to use own car/hire/go by public transport or not.

Posted By Stupendous Man Business mileage rates normally include an element to cover the additional cost of business use cover (and yes, contrary to some messages posted here there are still plenty of insurers who do charge for business use, and it is not always that simple to change). Would this 'top-up' cover provided by the employer be taxable as a benefit in kind?

Posted By Les Welling If you E mail me I can send you the form we use. Les

Posted By Jason911 I phoned to ask the HSE advice on this one. I was told that any employee using a vehicle on company business on the public highway would come under the juristiction of the Road Traffic Act and not the H&S Regs. I asked, as I had heard of a case of the HSE trying to prosecute a van drivers employers for casuing death by dangerous driving, whilst using a mobile phone. The HSE, however denied this as it would come under the Road Traffic Act of an employer 'causing or permitting the employee to drive.' I can't say I believe them though, still at least they are consistent. Jay