Dingy

as the topic states.

I have been told that uk law doesn't allow you to service your own car and use it for business milage.

Is this true ?

Seems like a load of bullshit to me.

Oranoco

I really hope not as I've serviced my own cars for years and used them for business miles and quite a few of them

Dingy

To be honest it sounds like the company are wanting proof more than the UK law side of it.

Still i thought the MOT was a document of road worthyness.

Oranoco

I have to provide my licence, insurance and MOT once a year or upon request. Before I was allowed to use my car for work I also had to fill out a sheet stating when the last service was and when the next is. I told them I did it all and it got what it needed when it needed it and left it blank

Mike C

iTrader: (1)

I would say it depends on the nature of the business?

If you're just using at as your personal transport to get you around to do your day-to-day business and as long as you're not claiming expenses for servicing then I don't see as there should be an issue.

dojj

iTrader: (3)

it's simply to ensure some cars are meeting the more strigent emissions tests

and it's for commercial pupouses rather than business mileage so if you had a van then you'd have to get it properly stamped but a car you can use and filli t up with oil and spark plugs yourself

Dingy

Its a personal car that is insured for business miles and I get an allowance for this.

I think its company red tape as i said it has an MOT and not a service book for proof of road worthyness.

They appear to be back pedaling a bit LOL....weird.

ajamesc

i say no u dont if u dont have an operators licence we look after a few vans for different companys be it scaffolding / building companys and we only see them when they brake or its mot time! same with some of the smaller companys trucks aswell we only see them at mot time

Sp3no

iTrader: (1)

My company insists that i insure my car for buisiness miles, i do les than 1000 business miles a year and it cost ME and extra Ł100 on my premium for this which i get nothing back for. We have to submit proof of Insurance, driving licence, Tax MOT's when ever requested.

Dingy

same for me but i do 20k a year...

I am pretty sure the servicing is bullshit.

R5FORD

iTrader: (1)

Does the company provide insurance for the vehicle or you pay your own?

Dingy

Its mine all mine, I get 6k a year car allowance but everything else i sort.

DazC

iTrader: (1)

I don't understand why they are concerned as long as you have provided evidence that the car is legally on the road, unless it's on their insurance.

If it's a problem, make your own maintenance records on an Excel spread sheet!

Dingy

Me either dude, makes no sense.

Iain Mac

Corporate Manslaughter and Duty of Care legislation will be behind this. If you have an accident while driving your car on their business they will want to be able to prove the car was properly maintained.

A note from you saying you serviced it probably won't be adequate to protect them if the crash investigator finds a burst brake pipe, worn tyre or whatever else. However, if they have something from a "professional" saying the car is maintained correctly, that is a better defence for them.

If they pay an allowance, they are entitled to set rules like that, and you have the choice to accept their rules or let them provide a company/pool car for you to do your business travel. Unless your Ts & Cs of employment stipulate that you provide a car that is maintained to their satisfaction and taxed, tested, insured etc.


For 1000 business miles a year why not tell them that they can provide a pool or hire car for your very occasional business miles? That would be a much better solution for them under the legislation I've mentioned and it saves you some money (though you will lose out on your mileage reimbursement)

Colin_P

I also get a car allowance and service my own car, have done for years.

I've also noticed with my latest employer that they require service history as well as the mot, licence and insurance.

I've never been asked for the service history but I keep (as said above) a spreadsheet of what I do and at what milage.

It is not illegal to service your own car, not yet anyway and that is the response they'd get if I was ever challenged on it. I'd also suggest that they pay for the servicing if they are so worried about it and mention that I carry services on my own car every 5k not 10k and I would expect nothing less if they insisted someone else do it.

mattys_up

iTrader: (2)

I'd be very careful with this. In a day and age when its so easy for big coporations to pass the buck, unless you have a Ł1million plus public liability insurance i'd get a qualified mechanic to service the vehicle. I'm sure you do a good job and are more than capable, but its that garage stamp they look for on the service book. If you had an accident you can guarantee a big company would protect there public image over a employee who killed someone. The other parties insurance would then come after you, your home and anything else they can get there grubby little hands on.

Check you T&C's of your car allowance. A standard term in these things is that a protion of the money is to be used to maintain the vehicle by a qualified person. Even with company cars you have a duty of care to have the vehicle serviced at regualr internals set by the manufactuer. Fail to do this and you are liable.

In my experience of working for a major corporation if you have to travel no matter how far on company business i would always ask to be supplied with a car supplied by the company. Then the liability is with the company to provide you with a road worthy vehicle. Also you are only insured on a standard policy to travel to and from work for communting to you normal place of work. It may not cover you for using your vehicle for work purposes, Check your small print.

It's all about covering your own arse....

The DIVA

iTrader: (3)

Steve.....

Easiest way if they want to be arsey is do a nightschool course on motor vehicle maintenance then they can`t say shit to you about it being maintained by a qualified person.......

All dealer and motor factor spare parts are approved nowadays and carry liability insurance so if you have a certificate to say you are competent then you can tell them where to stick it......

Colin_P

Hear what you say but I cannot see the issue.

You can service your car and there are no laws saying otherwise.

If you have a prang it will go through your insurance, not your companies. I've got class 2 business insurance and always make sure I have legal cover as well.

The only stipulations my place make other than those I've mentioned above are that the car has 4 seats. Nothing about being less than 5 years old etc unlike previous places.

So I choose to burn round in an 11 year Focus and pocket the cash!

It has never been an issue but if they insisted that I take the car to a garage, I'd insist they pay the extra for that.

Shings

STEVE

UTTER BOLLOCKS.....

My company has rules similar to this for my car allowance but they state road worthy and services regularly... previous company wanted evidence of service but never actually asked.

Its probably a policy thing and is more down to people like 'us' who use buisness/car allowance for personal cars as part of our wages and don't buy 'normal' cars.

Shings

Just to add -

Apparently I an nuts because I smoke around in a 2.6 V6 Vectra thats 10 years old.....

But for the priveldge I get Ł4k+ a year before tax.... and 15p a mile + I get to claim the diff back in tax from the gov't each year.

Everyone else gets a company car (no allowance) which is a lame ass bogo 307/308 Diesel or focus/mondeo equiv. and gets taxed on it and can't claim the diff back....

HMMMMMM

Difficult one.

Iain Mac

Absolutely correct EXCEPT that in the event of a claim, the litigant will go after the deepest poskets and that will probably be the employers.


I'm sure the time-served guys will be along to tel you why a night-school certificate will not make you "qualified". An eager lawyer chasing a big settlement or a reputation-creating case would take maybe 3 minutess to set out in court why the home-mechanic isn't qualified to do even routine maintenance.



The claim will go through your insurance, but if you have a serious incident you can be 100% positive that they will also go after your employer too if you were driving on their business, both for compensation and any legal charges that may be brought.

Class 2 business insurance refers to WHO can drive, not the cover you get. Class 2 allows anyone named on the policy to use the car in connection with the policyholder's business (but not for another employer's business - eg the wife's job)

Class 3 allows the carriage of goods in transit. Say, replacement parts if you are a service tech for a computer/photocopier/whatever tech.

As for the extra costs of servicing, I'd expect their car policy already stipulates that you get the allowance and/or mileage rate and must have the car maintained.

The first case of Corporate Manslaughter to go before the courts has just resulted in a conviction and a fine of Ł385k. Employers all over the country have been hearing about the risks that their fleet policies expose them to, for some time now, and are about to start looking at things like this very seriously, even though this first case involved a pit collapse rather than anything motoring-related.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

i dont get it.

business or private you are required by law to have 3rd party insurance or stump up a massive "equivilent" bond (like MoD and some large companies do).

as long as you comply with the wording on your policy then you cannot be personally liable any more than you are currently under an insurance policy.

If its a stipulation of your policy that vehicle must be serviced by professional then so be it, but other wise why bother???

Iain Mac

The Corporate Manslaughter Act leaves employers exposed to criminal charges as well as potential compensation claims if a failure of management gives rise to injury in the course of their operations.

So if company A pays employee B an amount of money to use his own car on their business, but doesn't take steps to ensure the vehicle is fit for purpose, properly maintained, and adequately ensured, a Director could get jail-time.

It is a huge issue currently, and an industry has sprung up advising businesses on steps to take, starting with holding copies of employees driving licences, right through to abolishing any grey-fleet use at all and putting arrangements in place for company mileage to be done in company, pool, or hire cars where issues like maintenance and insurance can be brought under the employer's direct control.

Magnum PI

Hi,

been looking through some tax legislation at work (HMRC) concerning using your own car for business.

under the 'old' rules (and I do mean old), you could claim a proportion of all your costs of keeping the car on the road on a % basis based on business mileage covered.
If (for EG) you did 10,000 miles per year (of which 5000 were business miles (50%)) then you could claim 50% of all costs (insurance,servicing road tax etc etc) this had to be a fairly detailed claim with receipts.

the new flat rate mileage allowances, refered to Approved Mileage allowace payments - AMAPs for short (40p per mile for 1st 10,000 miles + 25p per mile thereafter) is an all encompasing re-imbursement rate that takes into account all relevant costs such as extra wear & tear, depreciation, insurance and servicing costs etc)

However, I can find no reference to a stipulation that says a person claiming the AMAP rate has to have the vehicle serviced by a garage!.

As far as HMRC is concerned its just a rate of reimbursement without 'strings attached' other then proof of mileage covered.

This is something that some employers are putting on top on their own to cover their own backs I presume. as far as the authorities are concerned it isnt a requirement!

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/paye/exb/a-z/...e-expenses.htm

Smiggy

I agree with Iain, my wife works for the local council and they have just announced that they will no longer be paying for employees to use their own cars. They are now supplying pool cars or telling people to take public transport. One of the reasons that was being quoted was something similar to what Iain is saying. by letting employees use their own cars on council business they have no way of monitoring the maintenance/roadworthyness of the vehicles. Which in turn leaves them wide open for compensation claims etc

Magnum PI

Smidgy,

i hear what you are saying and TBH, we at HMRC have pool cars only for use on official business (where use of a car is most cost effective method)

Its because all public sector bodies are bound more vigourously to the 'elf n safety mob that everything has to be 'risk assessed' and nobody wants anybody to do anything on 'official business' that hasn't had every i dotted and every t crossed.
No one want to end up with lawsuits or claims for negligence. Just the way it is

Iain Mac

MagnumPI - Don't confuse tax legislation for the employee with the employers responsibilities under Corporate Manslaughter. The two are entirely unconnected.

And trust me when I say that large parts of the private sector are becoming just as cautious about this issue.

Shings, the AMAPs Magnum refers to have to cover all the employees costs but anything paid in excess of these rates is taxable at the employee's highest tax rate, while the employee can claim tax relief on any underpayments below these rates. (Note, it is a tax relief, not the whole difference - so if you do 10,000 business miles per year and work pay 15p/mile, you can claim tax relief on the 10,000 miles x the 25p shortfall between the 40p and the 15p your employer pays, (so you get relief at either 20%/40% of the Ł2500 ie Ł500/Ł1000), not the whole Ł2500.
The Ł4000 is taxed as income.

Magnum PI

Iain,

i wasn't confusing the two. i realise they are seperate issues.
I was just checking the issue out to try and make sure that as far as the OP was concerned, his employer hasn't tried to claim that it was a condition of payment of AMAP rates stipulated by 'the taxman'

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

i dont get why this isnt suddenly a private personal insurance issue too.

after all arent we all then making ourselves legally liable for millions of pounds of law suits by crashing our personal cars?

isnt that why we have insurance???

has there been any successful case law where a specific case of a vehicle with a valid MoT was home serviced and a fault with the vehicle led to coorporate manslaughter against the company???

fucking pansy pooftah compensation culture going too far IMO.

Surely in such cases they would have to proove the company knowingly were responsible???

afterall how is the thick cunt apprentice at so called "professional" kwik fit likely to do a) a better job and b) be any more accountable.

or are we talking the company could counter sue a garage???

how about just making the individual driver take the blame if an accident was their fault. After all its worked fine for decades. Sure if companies are stupid enough to put 30 min delivery like pizza companies did 20 years ago then sure thats stupid. but how can an employer really know the dummy behind the wheel isnt going to kill someone? he cant.

and with home servicing, if MoT is not good enough then why is it legally valid these days??

seems like compo making shit up as they go along to justify thier silly wages and even more silly compo figures.

DanW@FastFord

iTrader: (1)

The MoT is no guarentee of roadworthyness.

It's all down to businesses fearing a corporate manslaughter charge. If you have an accident in your car and die, your 'estate' could take your boss, and your bosses boss etc to the cleaners for allowing you to use an unroadworthy car!

It's all a load of shit but companies really have to cover their arses!

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

yeah but where do you draw the line???

if insurance and industry have decided MoT isnt good enough are they going to implement their own minimum standards and ignore DVLA??

what next, under 30s unemployable in driving roles or jobs with access to vehicles because statistics show they are a high risk group and a "good" employer using an under 30 year old in a driving role could in theory be found guilty of taking a risk??

You cannot eliminate all risk. just not possible. There has to be a whats accepted as "reasonable" levels of risk and precautions. compo culture seems to be writing "reasonable" into "absurd" and rediculous.

what next, professional drivers have to do a annual retest/driving standards assessment wear a crash helmet and a fire proof suit

co-orporate responsibility is going too far IMO.

DanW@FastFord

iTrader: (1)

The MoT has NEVER been a guarentee of roadworthyness though -

"Your MOT certificate confirms that your vehicle, at the time of its test, without dismantling it, met the minimum acceptable environmental and road safety standards required by law. It doesn’t mean the vehicle is roadworthy for the life of the certificate and isn’t a substitute for regular maintenance."


You’re not allopwed to drive a car at our work unless you are 21, and have had a full licence for at least one year. I can see that figure rising too.

You would think so wouldn’t you. In the eyes of the H&S officials there is no such thing as common sense, and there is no such thing as an accident. There is ALWAYS someone to blame.

Why do you think that RTAs are now called RTCs!

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

But dan yes you are right about MoT being minimum standard so why shouldnt that minimum standard be applicable to business too??

you dont see private individuals being raped for millions because they crashed to months before the mot as the vehicle had defects on. they have erm insurance for that .....

its implying there needs to be a massively different standard for private vehicles and business which is daft IMO.

Thing is its all very well now, its still doable, but what about in 5 years when they try the next level or 10 years. it must be almost at the point now where many new business just give up as the "safety case" makes it impossible to work let alone make a profit. So surprise surprise they contract to a country where H&S doesnt exist

and yes there's always someone to blame, usually the dummy behind the wheel.

DanW@FastFord

iTrader: (1)

Because the DVLA state that the MoT is no guarentee of roadworthyness (which in effect covers their arses) it means that it is no 'defence' for employers.

Say Mr X uses his personal car for business. One day on his way to a job his brakes fail and he smashes it up killing him.

Mr X's wife then tries to sue the company because they let him use an unroadworthy car for work.

The company then have to PROVE they aren't negligent, and prove they took all necessary steps to ensure that car they let their employee use during work was safe. The only way to do this would be to have a proof of a service histroy carried out by someone with a recognised qualification in car maintainance.

If they discover that Mr X serviced the car himself, and that he had no formal training then the company is fucked!

Just like to point out that I'm not arguing against you, I uttery agree it it a ridiculous situation.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

why is the onus on proving they arent negligent when in the UK every criminal legal precedence is set on the presumption of innocence??? surely they have to prove they were negligent??

And if these arent criminal cases then how are these compo judgements in any way legally enforcable??

I dont see why there needs to be a different burden of proof compared to criminal cases. After all if people are going to prison for corporate manslaughter then surely they are entitled to the same due process and protection as anyone else accused of a crime?

your right. the whole thing is fucking ridiculous.

Iain Mac

Forget insurance. This is NOT an insurance issue. If you crash you have insurance for the financial element but this is about a criminal trial for (effectively) negligence on the part of the employer allowing unsafe working conditions.

If an employer sends you out in your car on his business and you crash and kill someone they will be investigated. It already happens following a fatality while driving at work and, because English law is largely based on precedent, the authorities are waiting for just the right case to take to trial.

During the investigation, when it becomes clear that they haven't taken reasonable steps to ensure that you are quailfied to drive the vehicle (say you only hold a licence for an automatic but go out in a manual car), or that the vehicle proved to be defective but they hadn't taken reasonable steps to check maintenance was properly carried out, they then go to court where the burden of proof is for them to show that they HAD taken steps.

And if you're the one who dies, the employer can't count on your grieving widow to provide any evidence that the work HAD been done, is she? That could harm HER payout and the satisfaction of seeing the bg boss go to the big house.

DanW@FastFord

iTrader: (1)

It's a myth that English law is a matter of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Just look at speeding fines for example. You're guilty of speeding unless YOU manage to prove you are innocent.

It's well documented that there are flaws with most speed detection devices (Radar is flawed, as are the laser devices, especially anything hand-held). But the Police don't have to prove anything in a court of law, they simply have to tell you they believe you were speeding. You are automatically guilty until proven innocent.

Colin_P

Some law is an arse.

Common sense, last seen in the UK in 1980 something.

Wipe the statute books clean and start again on the principal of if it is taking the piss it doesn't go to court.

Taking the piss or not would be decided by a Jury.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

the point youve made which is exactly the point im trying to make is what is reasonable??
who decides??

it seems no one has a definition or where they exist different burdens of proof and different definitions are used willy fucking nilly with no rationale or logic...

the problem with this "reasonable steps" bollocks is there is no definition so it seems you have to take "excessive steps" which is completely against the whole principal of all the various health and safety acts.

To many people on this forum it is perfectly "reasonable" that home servicing is as safe and in many cases safer than some monkey in kwikfit who is trying to get as much in and out the door in a day..

surely part of negligence is proving that you as a manager didnt consider reasonable risks.

how can a court know what your thinking? and how can a court prove your thoughts were negligent.

after all the assumption that a car enthusiast is adequately competant to service his own car is perfectly reasonable and logical in most cases. so it cant be negligence surely??

if your expecting quals to maintain your car for business to "prove" competance and hence avoid negligence could you not argue that the same manager is guilty of negligence if he does not personally check that employees at the local kwik fit are qualified.

Surely on that logic the assumption that a professional garage is competant is just as flawed as assuming a car enthusiast is competent.

ie its all madness because its a judgement call.

but she is committing an offence herself by lying. death isnt about money....
yes that does highlight the flaws of the FPN system although you are entitled to go to court everytime even if they make it prohibitatively awkward.