1771, proof of commercial insurance needed?

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by moggy, May 25, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. we have just been informed by our RAO that all claims on 1771 will be rejected unless you can provide proof of commercial (i.e. business) car insurance with minimum cover of 10 million pounds. Now as far as I know your insurance covers you to and from your house to your place of work. So, if you are on a course you are covered to drive from your house to that place of work. Can anyone shed any light on this? Is this the latest example of the army being in danger of dissapearing up its own ahole or is there something in this? :?
  2. As far as I'm aware, your RAO is wrong. You should have Class 1 business insurance as the TA is deemed a place of work. The ordinary insurance covers you for journeys to and from a SINGLE place of work, provided that you don't carry samples or profit from the travelling (this is simplified, but that's the basic gist).

    The issue of a minimum cover of 10 million is a load of balls.

    Don't fret too much. The cost of Class 1 over Comprehensive isn't that great and some insurers don't actually charge any extra (at least that's what I've found - I need Class 1 for work as I travel to different places).

    In summary, yes, you should have business insurance (per 1771 small print), but it's not a big issue to get it.
  3. Sadly, it is the National lottery that is a load of balls, the requirement for £10m cover is indeed, true.

    It's the latest missive from an Army up it's arrse and was only made public last week. Whilst such a level of cover is clearly bonkers, the very requirement for Business cover on the insurance is equally draconian as this can, in some instances, double the premium.

    The issue is whether this extends to T&S claims for the TA when travelling to and from their place of duty. As I understand it, this issue remains unconfirmed. Of course, should the MOD implement it on to T&S claims, no-one will turn up and even they may notice it.

    Simple answer - order a hire car at the Army's cost. When the bills from hirecar.com rocket, they'll have to look at it again.

    Why make things easy when you can make them difficult? - it's just another admin own goal not dissimilar to the 'unavailability slips from Messes' if you want to claim back a hotel cost - Now that IS bonkers.
  4. Residence to place of duty claims should not require any cover over normal fully comp. Duty rate is a differant matter - but who ever manages to claim that.

    Should some arrsewipe in the MOD decide to change the rules, then put the extra money on a 1771 If we all claim at the same time, said arssewipe will be soon moved to somewhere where he can't do any damage.
  5. If I wasn't in the TA then I wouldn't need insurance cover for two places of work.

    So can I claim for the difference in insurance premium on a 1771?

    I don't care if they reject it but let's start a mass campaign, let's designate June 3rd "Insurance premium hike claim day" and see how many 1771's make it to the bank!

    (Incidentally 3rd of June is also Tax Freedom Day
  6. This change might be new to some of us, but the requirement is not. It has always been a requirement to be insured for all journeys in the UK, and car insurance companies have always caveated their cover "... commuting to and from a permanent place of work ..." or similar. My understanding is that the key factor the insurance company looks for is whether or not you get paid mileage. If you do, it's not commuting, hence you're not covered. This applies of course to your civvy job as well, which is why I've already got the extra cover "... Use ... in connection with their ... business or profession ...". As I'm old and drive a boring car it was free.

    The fact that the TA is only now properly publicising this and checking it's done shows that as an organisation it's fallen woefully short in the past, it's not anything new.

    The £10 million is a bit of a red herring I think, I took a gander at my policy and that had a ceiling of £20 million. Look in the policy booklet for the small print. I suspect that £10 million was chosen as a baseline as most policies cover that anyway. The policy also covers costs for anyone who gets hurt and anything that gets broken - again, check yours but they sound standard to me. So that covers third parties, passengers and property.

    However, the ODR reqt for £10 million cover for your own vehicle - bizarre ! You'll never get that, companies will pay you what they think it's worth. And who drives a motor worth £10 million anyway ? So best not claim that then.
  7. I can't blame the Army on this one. It's not their decision, but a requirement from the insurers. The Army became involved because if a soldier had an RTA on the way to or from training (and the insurance company discovered the purpose of the journey), the insurance company wouldn't pay up. The soldier would then try to claim against the Army. This would be disallowed and would cause a feeling of resentment.

    The blame lies with the insurance companies. Either they're not sufficiently patriotic to insert a clause in the policy stating that travel between home and TAC is included or they misunderstand the hazards of the journey - after all, if you write off a Chally 2 as a result of swiping it with your Fiat Uno.....

    The requirement for business insurance isn't a new one - it's been in place over 25 years that I know of (Yes Mushroom, since our days together - but then the TA was my sole place of work, so I wasn't affected!). If you've not been paying the premiums up to now, think of all the money you've saved that can go towards your new premiums. :D
  8. Good point, must check my policy docs. Thinking about it, £10 million isn't actually a lot when you consider that you could, potentially, put a minibus full of people in intensive care and consign them to wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.
  9. So that was the form I signed on Tuesday night !
  10. more money saving antics.........
  11. I wonder if we need to have 'business' insurance then we should be paid for duty travel i.e. on weekend camps you travel on the Friday but you only get paid for Sat/Sun.

    You can't have it both ways. In my view your either on duty (and paid accordingly) or you are not in which case normal insurance should apply.
  12. Jeez, this seems to be taking some grasping.

    The insurance companies are the ones who are saying that you're not insured if you drive to the TAC without Business (Class 1) insurance. If you're going to moan at someone, moan at your insurer - we all know that there is no more of a risk of an accident going to the TAC than if you were going to the swimming pool.

    The Army is merely ensuring that you're driving legally - under H&S laws, it now has a duty of care - and being seen not to condone an otherwise illegal action.

    The test case will be if an unemployed TA soldier refuses to get Class 1 insurance. As the TAC would be his "normal place of work," his insurer wouldn't require him to have Business insurance - but the Army may not be able to think outside the box.
  13. OK that helps, cheers guys

    so we've all just been getting away with it until now!!
  14. Puttees - I am in possession of a note from your Mother to the OC, telling him not to let you do anything dangerous and to make sure you went to bed early. More cheek from you and it gets published on this site. (Writing looks very much like Pat or Dick H's).
  15. same goes for those of us who use public transport to go to civvy job therefore the TAC is our sole place of work for car use.

    Also, as OR's are not on duty till they sign the paysheet and then are off duty from the moment they are dismissed could it not be argued that when you travel you are not actually working and the place you are travelling to is also a social club so S/D/P could apply?

    If you have an accident on the way to the TAC would the army probably be able to get out of any claim as you would not be on duty and therefore as a casual worker are not deemed to be employed by the MOD at the specific moment of the accident?