tomkbucks

ive just found a document hidden away on our network drive.. says a few things about our company cars and pool cars that ive never known about ! is this all legal ?

"It your responsibility (the driver) to check that a car complies with legal requirements e.g. tyre tread. "

". If involved in an accident never admit liability and exchange the relevant insurance details with the tpy. An excess is payable by the company if it is necessary to make an insurance claim and this may be passed on to the car holder if the person driving their car is held to be the cause of the accident"

seems very unfair ! is this all normal ?

MarkB

Yes.

What's unfair about it? You treat it as your car, so why wouldn't it be up to you to make sure it's legal, and if you crash it, pay the excess?

You would with your own car.

Rob88

Yep. Seems quite normal to me.

You may not have to pay for new tyres but as a driver it's your responsibility to make sure it's road worthy. It's actually the same for hire cars – although if you get a puncture in a hire car you actually have to pay for the tyre.

For the accident thing, that's perfectly normal too.
It’s quite standard for people to be told to not admit liability at the scene of an accident, too many cases of the person at fault getting the confused and disoriented crash victim to admit liability – although it does get messed up later when people still try and deny liability once all the facts are in and it's obvious it's their fault.

And the excess being passed on to you if it's your fault is quite normal too.
Again, it can get messy if the lawyers get involved and start arguing about 50:50 blame and stuff like that.

Polemicist

Point one would seem entirely acceptable and fair and I'm sure it's the legal responsibility of the driver to ensure the car complies with all appropriate regulations.

As regards point two, I guess it depends upon what the company car policy is and what the user agrees to and is in their employment contract.

I worked for a company which had an 'active' and 'passive' accident policy for car users. 'Passive' accidents were those whereby the car was damaged through no fault of the driver - but the driver was still required to pay a sum. 'Active' accidents were those caused by the driver - in which a larger sum was paid to the employer.

It was all a result of the MD rolling his 6 moth old fully loaded 7 series and the FD wanting to recoup some of the vastly increased fleet insurance policy as a result. There were also quite a few other minor incidents caused by dick-head drivers - alas they were never dealt with directly, so all the company car drivers became tarred with the same brush.

tomkbucks

Yup thought so just we have 10 year old poolcars and no one checks them, plus on one the brakes are glazed as its never used so can be lethal to drive if u need to stop quick! Any rules on the age of company vehicles?

AquilaEagle

Absolutely standard practice with comapny cars, in my experience.

Bundle of Mayhem

Yep all standard and reasonable - it's what I put in my company car drivers handbook.

Bundle of Mayhem

No limit on age but I would expect one of my drivers if they had a concern about a vehicle to come and discuss it with me.

Any decent Fleet Manager will listen to your concerns, especially if they don't want to end up in the dock on a Corporate Manslaughter charge.

tomkbucks

ah yes - they listen but im told they will ' monitor it ' erm ...

long story cut short we have 2 pool cars - both are year 2000 1.6 Focus's they are both ruff around the edges (110k miles) and are prob driven twice a month each.. BUT one - the brakes 'work' but if you stamp on them hard when say at motorway speed they just dont work... the pads feel glazed and just not safe - the other car is fine... i just always refuse to book out the car with the issue BUT im not sure were i stand if i have an accident in the one were i have already reported the brakes to be crap....

GarethB

Always amazes me the number of "daily driver" company cars with bald or near bald tyres.

People seem to think that because it doesn't belong to them that someone else will check the tyres. Who exactly?

And these people would probably say, "I've no interest in cars"
I've no interest in planes but I'd prefer to know that somebody had had a look at it before I flew anywhere.

My boss had his car in for service recently and seemed annoyed that the car needed 3 or 4 new tyres. His annoyance was the cost, not the fact that his pregnant wife and 1 yr old son had been driven about in a potential death trap.