Food delivery persons - anyone here?

[djnotts]

Be interesting if crack (!) down replicated in Nottingham. I was out a bit later than usual this a.m., better off side of City centre, saw approx 12 delivery bikes, all electric, all I think "illegal" - didn't see much pedalling!

[Pebble]

There was a case publicised via a Police Twitter account recently where they pulled over an Amazon delivery guy using his own car. No insurance for doing that sort of thing.

You see them around, especially on weekends. Battered old cars loaded to the brim with Amazon parcels.

Is that actually against the law?
yes it falls fowl of your insurance contract but your insurance will still honour the 3rd party so therefor the law is met.
(the insurance could then pursue the driver for their loss, if they have any assests)
But is it actually a criminal offence as in driving without insurance

I suppose it could be criminal in defrauding your insurance company, but that is sort of getting away from traffic offence

[djnotts]

^ "Is that actually against the law?
yes it falls fowl of your insurance contract but your insurance will still honour the 3rd party so therefor the law is met.
(the insurance could then pursue the driver for their loss, if they have any assests)
But is it actually a criminal offence as in driving without insurance"

If make false declarations in application then total policy technically invalid, altho I assume Insurers have some discretion over 3rd party payout. So 3rd party could fall and thus driving without valid insurance become a criminal offence. Often seen added to other driving offences as "driving without valid insurance" I think.

[Grandad]

If you cause an accident whilst driving uninsured any third party who suffers personal injury can claim compensation from the Motor Insurers Bureau. All insurance companies contribute to this and this cost is reflected in the premiums that we all pay

[rareposter]

There was a case publicised via a Police Twitter account recently where they pulled over an Amazon delivery guy using his own car. No insurance for doing that sort of thing.

You see them around, especially on weekends. Battered old cars loaded to the brim with Amazon parcels.

Is that actually against the law?
yes it falls fowl of your insurance contract but your insurance will still honour the 3rd party so therefor the law is met.
(the insurance could then pursue the driver for their loss, if they have any assests)
But is it actually a criminal offence as in driving without insurance

I suppose it could be criminal in defrauding your insurance company, but that is sort of getting away from traffic offence

Yes, driving without correct insurance is against the law.
Same way that if you declare your vehicle is only used for domestic and leisure but you're running it as a taxi service or using it for commuting to your place of work (both of which would command a higher premium based on the increased usage, mileage and therefore risk).

You count as not insured and that's against the law.

[Bmblbzzz]

I wonder how many people have that type of motor insurance but use their car for commuting? Probably a lot, I'd guess.

[PH]

yes it falls fowl of your insurance contract but your insurance will still honour the 3rd party so therefor the law is met.

You count as not insured and that's against the law.

You are correct, though it's understandable why Pebble might have thought otherwise. It's usual for the insurers of an incorrectly insured driver to pay out and reclaim from the MIB, who in turn may try and claim against the uninsured driver. The detail of why that is, is hidden in the RTA, someone directed me to the appropriate section, but I couldn't understand it. I was following a case where the driver of a modified car was convicted of driving without insurance, but the insurer still had to go to court to void the policy.

For delivery drivers, there is no excuse, there are specialist firms who will either insure you fully including Hire and Reward, or act as a third party to just cover that element, or be the sole insurer but only whilst delivering. Zego are the market leaders, they're tied in with most of the delivery companies, you can pay per delivery/day/week/month and in some cases the premium can be paid out of earnings. If you have a motor account, the platform will check you have H&R insurance and disable your App while they do so. Though as mentioned upthread their responsibility doesn't extend to anyone subcontracted by the acc holder.

https://www.zego.com/hire-and-reward-insurance/

[rareposter]

I wonder how many people have that type of motor insurance but use their car for commuting? Probably a lot, I'd guess.

https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/new ... -uk-roads/

About 1 million, maybe 1.2 million. Important to note that it's the DRIVER who is uninsured, not technically the car. The car can be illegal for any number of other reasons though - no MOT or tax being the commonest but unsafe condition is high up there too.

[Bmblbzzz]

Important to note that it's the DRIVER who is uninsured, not technically the car.

Good point. There would seem to be arguments both ways as to which approach is the most sensible; insuring the driver or the vehicle. For instance, I've been told that in USA, it's the vehicle, so you can lend your car to a friend and they're automatically covered (as long as they hold a valid licence and have your permission). That seems quite sensible and could sometimes avoid dangerous situations (eg the owner feels unwell or has been drinking) in addition to taking a step towards making a vehicle a household asset rather than a personal one.

[Pebble]

vehicles must have insurance even if there is no one to drive them, even if it does not work and is off the road hidden in your own garage - unless it has a SORN, it must be insured by someone.

[pete75]

Important to note that it's the DRIVER who is uninsured, not technically the car.

Good point. There would seem to be arguments both ways as to which approach is the most sensible; insuring the driver or the vehicle. For instance, I've been told that in USA, it's the vehicle, so you can lend your car to a friend and they're automatically covered (as long as they hold a valid licence and have your permission). That seems quite sensible and could sometimes avoid dangerous situations (eg the owner feels unwell or has been drinking) in addition to taking a step towards making a vehicle a household asset rather than a personal one.

In most coutries it's the vehicle that's insured, and in some it's the driver.. Weird system here where it's a combination of driver and vehicle.