Jump to content

The Doctor's travels through time - Chilling with my hose


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, TheDoctor said:

I get that it's a ballot box, and something to do with Freemasonry, but other than that, I'm stumped. 

You are about there.  The idea is members can vote anonymously, if the black balls exceed the white you are out!

Your crime is being found in possession of a new car!

Only kidding of course for a bit of fun because work is so boring!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheDoctor said:

It's company car or hire car only. Thems the rules. 

Strange.  Most companies are happy to spend 45p/mile for someone to use their own car.  Usually works out cheaper than hire car + fuel.

Or have they seen your car(s) and suddenly made up a new rule, just for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Talbot said:

Strange.  Most companies are happy to spend 45p/mile for someone to use their own car.  Usually works out cheaper than hire car + fuel.

Or have they seen your car(s) and suddenly made up a new rule, just for you?

Not at all strange. Companies can be liable if someone drives for business and don't have appropriate insurance. Plus there is the cost of processing expensed journeys and the process is open up to mistakes/fraud. Hence less risk and hassle to point someone to the companies hire car account. So some companies have a blanket policy of only hire or company owned cars for business use. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SiC said:

Companies can be liable if someone drives for business and don't have appropriate insurance.

This is indeed something that is checked for at my company, and  at previous places I've worked.  the expenses claim I would suggest is actually easier to administer than a hire car plus fuel.  I suspect it's more the issue with insurance.

Maybe I've just not worked for companies that are big enough to just say "no private car business miles evAr"

Link to post
Share on other sites

We bought a van and insured it for everyone as that was easier, cheaper and legally more comfortable than reimbursing people for own use.

We have a duty of care to make sure people’s own cars used for our business are insured for use, taxed and roadworthy, which sounds lovely but is a logistical nightmare as it means a lawyer approved paper trail. God help us if you serviced your car yourself, how do we prove it happened or that you’re competent.

~

This will apply to many of us not just the doc, but as an employer I wouldn’t want to have to stand in the dock and defend it’s not my fault your 25yr old car suffered electric failure and subsequent squashing by an artic at night while being somewhere dictated by me for my business. 

Mileage reimbursement is getting legally stickier... ( hence the increases in restrictions of car age, vat reg garage servicing, checking of insurance for correct business category etc)

” Can you explain to the judge why you didn’t hire a modern safer more efficient corsa for £50 to would have allowed your employee to work safely for you and still be alive today?”

its just ppe... if you are working for me I’ve got to make sure you are protected, even from yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@scdan4, I'm not doubting what you say as it sounds all too typical of the modern world but where is the logic. If a car is good enough to drive on the road, drop your kids off at school, transport nuns and kittens, etc etc. then why wouldn't it be good enough to make a journey for work. The insurance issue I can understand, as they make their own rules up but I can't fathom why a company should have to be responsible for the condition of an employee's car.:-/

Soz for the thread derailment Doc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, spartacus said:

where is the logic

H&S violations are one of the few things that the directors can be personally liable for, rather than being able to hide behind a limited liability company. If you were a director of a large company, would you want to find yourself in the dock if one of your (many) employees did something stupid. You'd be making sure your damnest that your arse is covered!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SiC said:

H&S violations are one of the few things that the directors can be personally liable for, rather than being able to hide behind a limited liability company. If you were a director of a large company, would you want to find yourself in the dock if one of your (many) employees did something stupid. You'd be making sure your damnest that your arse is covered!

Absolutely, it doesn't make it any more logical though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scdan4 said:

"Can you explain to the judge why you didn’t hire a modern safer more efficient corsa for £50 to would have allowed your employee to work safely for you and still be alive today?”

I genuinely believe that could never happen.  There's no way in the world that any lawyer or judge would be able to say that if someone had been in a different car, they would still be alive today.

I still use my 23-year-old E300 for business.  I put part-worn tyres on it, service it myself and run it on veg oil when I can.  Other than ensuring it has business use insurance on it, and that I hold a current valid drivers licence, there's no more that a company needs to do to ensure the safety of their employee.  I believe I had to sign a statement that indicated I would ensure that any vehicle I use for work is kept in legal condition (IE valid MOT, insured, taxed, tread on the tyres etc.) but more than that is not needed.

The day I cannot use my own car for business miles is the day I stop travelling for business.   There's no way I would be happy driving a 1.2 Corsa in preference to an old E-class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scdan4 said:

Mileage reimbursement is getting legally stickier... ( hence the increases in restrictions of car age, vat reg garage servicing, checking of insurance for correct business category etc)

I'm not aware of any legal restrictions of car age or proving garage servicing.   Is this something new?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Talbot said:

I'm not aware of any legal restrictions of car age or proving garage servicing.   Is this something new?

Some employers insists on these terms or they get you a hire car. One of my old employers had a fit when they found I was running my Clio on veg oil. It took a lost persuading to show them it was perfectly legal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spartacus said:

@scdan4, I'm not doubting what you say as it sounds all too typical of the modern world but where is the logic. If a car is good enough to drive on the road, drop your kids off at school, transport nuns and kittens, etc etc. then why wouldn't it be good enough to make a journey for work. The insurance issue I can understand, as they make their own rules up but I can't fathom why a company should have to be responsible for the condition of an employee's car.:-/

Soz for the thread derailment Doc.

Logic is the boss is responsible for the tools and you and the job. In this case (works time and doings) you're on the job therefore I'm responsible. I'd have to show due diligence. 

Assume I'm his boss. In this specific case the doc would be spending 6 to 8 hours on the motorway at my instruction for my reasons. He'd not be there except for my instruction. To either not care how he got there, or to expect him to do that in a 25 Yr old rover city car with holes in would not be showing adequate care imo. I'd certainly not want to have to explain that to anyone. Imagine how much it would cost in solicitors letters if his widow got angry and litigious. 

 

How he gets his kids to school in his own time is the exact opposite... Legally none of my business. 

58 minutes ago, Talbot said:

I'm not aware of any legal restrictions of car age or proving garage servicing.   Is this something new?

Not legal, no. Insurance more than anything else. (Check what you are covered for would be my advice.) It's never straight forward where that's concerned ime. 

Many firms have a max age of car if you opt out of company car scheme and/or stipulations about stuff as far as I am aware. The bigger the more likely, but my mates place stipulates age shape doors fuel at least, and they employ about 20 people, so not massive. 

Eta

*If you work on your brakes, fuck it up, tow for work it fails and you splat the bus queue, due to the health and safety at work act that is your bosses problem. Now try to find someone to insure that. 😁 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things must have changed considerably. I'm glad to say that I was under no such restrictions between 2005 and 2017 when I ran a variety of old rammel for about 250k on the company's opt out scheme, at least 150k of which was in a 1989 MR2. Ah, happy days.

Sent from my BV6000 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scdan4 said:

The bigger the more likely, but my mates place stipulates age shape doors fuel at least, and they employ about 20 people, so not massive. 

I think he's taking that waaaaay too far.  I've previously worked for an American company (IE quite familiar with legal action) and used a (different) E300 to do company miles.  This was a 58000 employee company with written bollocks for just about everything.  They made no stipulation about the car, only that it is legal, correctly insured and I have the correct license to drive it.  The only time they got a bit jumpy was when you exceeded 10k miles/annum, as at that point they suggested you should have a company car.  I was offered a VW up.  I asked them just how I was to transport tools and equipment in an UP.  So then I was offered a Bipper Van.  Do. Not. Want.

Suggesting that you need to show adequate care beyond making sure the employee is happy to drive the car they are driving, and that it complies with the legal minimum is very laudable, but also unnecessary.  I would also suggest that using an S210 for work is a lot more appropriate than an up, or any supermini hire car.  That said, if I wanted to use a 1981 Metro city for business miles, as long as it's legal, that's my choice.  The company image would be a more valid argument not to in that case though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • TheDoctor changed the title to The Doctor's travels through time - Winging it.
  • TheDoctor changed the title to The Doctor's travels through time - Chilling with my hose

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...