Taxi Driver Online

It has been bought to our attention, that Tradex Insurance, who cover both Taxi and Private hire insurance, have allegedly closed a loop hole and placed an exclusion in their terms of Insurance.

It is said they will now refuse to honor any claims made by licensed vehicle found accepting trips while working outside their own Licensed Area.
This means that PH drivers who are licensed by TfL as Private Hire Drivers, found to be accepting trips from their operator while outside the Greater Metropolitan Police District of Greater London are basically uninsured.

It's also alleged that Tradex are not alone in this and other insurers will also follow and add a similar caveats to their T&Gs.

Westminster Insurance have had a clause in their terms and conditions, in regards to PH drivers working outside their area since 2014.

This means Uber drivers, waiting for a ping, sitting around Gatwick Airport, are uninsured. As are the Uber drivers working the Uber app in Oxford, Reading, Bristol, Southend, Brighton etc. Drivers are breaking the law by being uninsured as soon as they accept work from Uber (or in certain cases illegally Touting)


This notice above was recently out out by St Albans City and Distric council. Steve ******** of the GMB said
"If St Albans can so this, then why can't other councils and the Police?"


It also works in reverse... PHV driver's licensed in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham etc, who come to London at the weekend to work in the capital, are also uninsured and breaking the law.

The legislation on cross border hiring is complicated and open to interpretation.


Anyone else with any info on this ?

I thought Westminster insurance was owned by tradex anyway ?

Yes - Tradex own Westminster!

_________________
Anyone can become a red, you are born to be a blue.
You do not choose, you are chosen.

Having read the article in PHTM this month I would say you are wrong insurance is NOT geographical

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

It is a qualified exclusion. It will depend on what is written into the schedule that dictates where the vehicle will be insured.

Use exclusions
The following uses are not covered unless specifically shown as included in your certificate of
motor insurance and/or your schedule

ii) the use of your vehicle as a taxi, PHV or PSV outside the area in which you are licensed to
operate

Until renewal, if current certificates do not contain the clause then they will HAVE to pay for claims.
If they are changing their terms & conditions for current customers at renewal, they must have to write to each one and advise them, surely?

_________________
Anyone can become a red, you are born to be a blue.
You do not choose, you are chosen.

where we operate we are less than 1 mile from the borders of 3 other licensing areas so that would mean someone phoning from just over the border for a short journey into town is an illegal fare. I could understand it if the exclusion was for picking up a rank or flag down but any job that is not geographically within borders or Heathrow, Gatwick etc

what are the insurers expecting a relay of cars and passengers having to disembark 1 and get into another at a county boundary ?

Any insurer doing that is committing commercial suicide

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

What if they all do it?

_________________
Grandad,

To seek clarification for you all, I telephoned Tradex this afternoon and spoke to an underwriter there.

As long as it's a legitimate return job booked by your normal firm, return trips are fine. What Tradex are trying to do is to stop people paying Cornwall insurance premium rates (for example) but then working in Manchester as it's happening a lot. This is straight from the horse's mouth - I spoke to an underwriter at Tradex a few minutes ago for clarification.

Hope this helps.

_________________
Anyone can become a red, you are born to be a blue.
You do not choose, you are chosen.

I'm not sure how many Uber vehicles will come under the Tradex Insurance banner, but it's an interesting point.

This is not really a licensing matter more a commercial one.

I'm often amazed how much drivers pay up north for insurance, often 3 or 4 times what I pay.

Therefore it could make financial sense for someone licensing somewhere down here when they are working up there.

_________________
IDFIMH

Precisely what Tradex are trying to avoid, Sussex.

_________________
Anyone can become a red, you are born to be a blue.
You do not choose, you are chosen.

It was in Newcastle not so long ago.

But surely all Tradex, or for that matter any other insurance company, need to do is have a box which asks prospective customers which area they are going to predominantly work in.

Predominantly could be defined as whatever percentage they see fit. I would suggest 70-80%.

Should then a driver not adhere to that requirement then he would be technically driving whilst uninsured.

_________________
IDFIMH

But how would the insurance company know where they were predominantly working, unless they have a telematics box fitted as well? They would only find out in the event of a claim otherwise - or am I missing the point?

_________________
Anyone can become a red, you are born to be a blue.
You do not choose, you are chosen.

They wouldn't, but that's not the point.

However should they wish to claim, then an insurance company could then ask for evidence that they have complied with their Ts & Cs.

Also if the requirement is put on the insurance cover note then the licensing authority has a duty to ensure the vehicle is properly insured, as does the operator.

Either or both of the above will be aware of where the driver predominately works, and they both have a legal duty to ensure the vehicle is properly insured.

_________________
IDFIMH