Kids in commercial vehicles

mickmmc

What about insurance?

From memory many years ago a Bread van was
involved in accident at 8pm on Saturday. The insurance
company refuse to pay out on the claim. The Bread company
could not prove that employee was using the van for commercial
purposes.

I saw a sticker on a utility company van driver's door a few years ago:
"Carrying of passengers in this vehicle will lead to dismissal"

pippip

mickmmc wrote: »

What about insurance?

From memory many years ago a Bread van was
involved in accident at 8pm on Saturday. The insurance
company refuse to pay out on the claim. The Bread company
could not prove that employee was using the van for commercial
purposes.

I saw a sticker on a utility company van driver's door a few years ago:
"Carrying of passengers in this vehicle will lead to dismissal"

This is where there are probably different commercial insurance packages. Some would have more restrictions than others. My mother in laws partner has an eircom van and he can never use it for anything personal, and is never allowed passengers unless Eircom employees.

You can still have a commercial vehicle with commercial insurance but taxed private so you can legally use it for SD&P.

dr.fuzzenstein

pippip wrote: »

In theory yes they can, thats the stupid thing about it.

In reality you are never going to be done for it unless you have really pissed them off and they add it in while you are being done for something else like speeding or a crash.

I'm not defending the law in anyway, its ridiculous, I just find it annoying how many of these threads have appeared recently relating to commercial tax where people are stating there is NO law you are breaking and its perfectly legal.

I can't seem to find any reference to the specific law that would prevent carrying passengers in an N1 type vehicle. Just curious.

edit:
I have a feeling that might be a separate issue from personal use (weekends and so forth)

pippip

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I can't seem to find any reference to the specific law that would prevent carrying passengers in an N1 type vehicle. Just curious.

Sorry, should that have quoted my last post rather than that one?

If so, I'm not saying there is a law, just saying the different insurance packages would have different restrictions, in a fleet the size of Eircoms, it probably saves them a fair amount.

But on a side note, the person was allowed keep his eircom van at his house. I'm assuming because he had to log into work on the system for his first call so in theory if you are paid from the moment you leave your house your not commuting anywhere so commercial tax would work in that situation.

Tony Beetroot

pippip wrote: »

If so, I'm not saying there is a law, just saying the different insurance packages would have different restrictions, in a fleet the size of Eircoms, it probably saves them a fair amount.

Using an eircom van for mass and going to weddings wouldn't go down well with most wives.

dr.fuzzenstein

pippip wrote: »

Sorry, should that have quoted my last post rather than that one?

If so, I'm not saying there is a law, just saying the different insurance packages would have different restrictions, in a fleet the size of Eircoms, it probably saves them a fair amount.

But on a side note, the person was allowed keep his eircom van at his house. I'm assuming because he had to log into work on the system for his first call so in theory if you are paid from the moment you leave your house your not commuting anywhere so commercial tax would work in that situation.

Not you in particular, but a some people seem to suggest that the law specifically prevents passengers being carried, I don't think it does.
As for taking the van on a Sunday pleasure cruise or going to the pub/on holidays, that could be different, but I never cared.
When I had a van, officially my work would start when I arrived at my first job or the office or depot to pick up supplies/get coffee. I guess that varies from company to company.

Markcheese

Think they're a lot stricter in the uk - if an employee takes a company van home the workplace must be able to prove he's "on call" and not just commuting -
I'd be feiced as I go shopping - collect kids from school and anything else I think of - mind you nobody would really drive my van for pleasure

dr.fuzzenstein

Markcheese wrote: »

Think they're a lot stricter in the uk - if an employee takes a company van home the workplace must be able to prove he's "on call" and not just commuting -
I'd be feiced as I go shopping - collect kids from school and anything else I think of - mind you nobody would really drive my van for pleasure

It's what it's there for! Drop the kids off on the way, swing by the shops on the way home and inbetween go to the post office, the bank, etc...
Imagine now constable plod trying to figure out what job you've been to, where you're going, is it OK to go the the bank on the way, are you allowed to go to McDonalds on the way home? is that a good use of time for him or the guy being stopped or the company he works for? Silly.
I understand that you shouldn't head off to a 48 hour rave with 17 friends in the back over the weekend, but trying to stop people to do buy a book of stamps inbetween calls is just being sh*tty for the sake of being sh*tty, a symptom of being so obsessed with rules and regulations in modern day Europe it would make the Nazis blush.
I always say it, there will come a time in Europe where we will have to fill out 17 forms 2 weeks in advance to be allowed to wipe our arse, that will be the day when China and India (who don't particularly care about a 50000 page document of rules and regulations dealing with the width of toilet paper) will spend 2% of their GDP to buy us all out and make us their bitches. Just for fun. Because they can. Just my Monday rant.

sword1

The law on this was altered to bring it in line with the rest of Europe, so I presume it is similar on the continent, there is no way there will be a clampdown on it with a general election on the horizon

dr.fuzzenstein

sword1 wrote: »

The law on this was altered to bring it in line with the rest of Europe, so I presume it is similar on the continent, there is no way there will be a clampdown on it with a general election on the horizon

That's the difference between Ireland and the rest of Europe, we have the same laws on paper, but it's just for a bit of a laugh.

MikeCairo78

How it is treated from a tax perspective - ie benefit in kind and how tightly that is regulated is completely different to whether you are allowed. The insurance follows the law, and as such all vans etc that can carry passengers will allow for social domestic and pleasure. As long as you are following legal requirements re passengers then there is no problem.

sword1

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's the difference between Ireland and the rest of Europe, we have the same laws on paper, but it's just for a bit of a laugh.

The law was altered to allow n1 classed vehicles to be registered commercial, so I presume if anyone is considering getting one of these vehicles work away as they are unlikely to change it back in the near future and a rule where you are not allowed drive a vehicle home from work or drop your kids off at school is ridiculous and unenforceable

donegal.

pippip wrote: »

This is where it is a stupid rule but your still using it for personal use. I think I read somewhere that commuting to and from work is actually classed as personal use, doesn't fall under commercial tax use.

when i went to the guards to get the form signed i asked him about dropping the kids to school on the to work.
he asked me if i didnt use the van to drop the kids off, could i go to work?
no, therefore you're using your van for work.