75ZT Community

This is about the Kent PCC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-29553185

So this investigation as to whether she was insured for business use. Now before I retired my insurance certificate quite clearly stated that it included business use. Watching the various police series about them carrying out their duties you see them phoning the insurance companies and asking is so and so covered to drive this car etc. So do PCCs have a different type of insurance system?

Dunno for sure about her. You can have car insurance which is solely for business use, therefore if driving for pleasure and specifically not on business that insurance would be invalid. Most car insurance companies offer social domestic and pleasure, commuting as an extra and also business use as an extra.

I suspect there is another nine tenths of this that we know nothing about yet. Also suspect the investigation is to prove she was insured following accusations and suspicions by anti-PCC armchair warriors who have taken against her.

The amount of money the Police Service has to spend covering their collective backs is just shocking. They probably think the surest way to squash the rumour mill is to have an investigation that clears her.

So far as I know, and obviously without seeing the Ins. Certificate, all police vehicles used by serving officers (and that would include managers, which I assume she is) have to be insured 'for Business Use' to cover travel to and fro place of work. Common enough in civvy street and seems natural in this case. Can't think why someone would want that job though, you just can't win. Obviously appeals to a certain kind of bureaucrat.

Think it was her own vehicle - a Merc. Certainly another one was caught milking mileage payments and his designated base. Think here designation is somewhat different to a manager.

"Think it was her own vehicle - a Merc. Certainly another one was caught milking mileage payments and his designated base. Think here designation is somewhat different to a manager."

I see what you mean. Civil Servant? Whatever, I'm sure the subject must have been covered in pre-appointment training - if there was any that is. Creative expenses claims seem rather amateurish at any level, let alone in such an exalted position. I have no knowledge of this particular person or how they perform however it does seem to be a case of the individual being castigated largely because of the job they do. Doesn't take much for the hue and cry to go up before all the facts are known, whether justified or not. The level of ridicule over this particular waste of public money is impressive and must make the job almost untenable even for the thickest of skin.

I was not implying 'creative expenses claims' just that they are normally generous and therefore in excess of the costs of the mileage covered and normally taxable because of this. Certainly, when I worked for the NHS the mileage payments I received certainly more than covered my overall costs even taking into account the tax that I paid.

This case has been going on for some time, i.e. various reports on this incident.

My main point being that the Police do not normally have any problem in ascertaining whether insurance was in force for whatever the vehicle was being used for - so why the problem in this instance especially in view of the cost of all of this.

This is the other PCC that I was referring to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24870523

I am sure that if either of these used an official police vehicle then they would have been issued with a fuel card and insurance (do not know if it is still the case but I believe that the likes of police forces and organisations such as the old London Transport could self insure) would be such that cover was for every reason a vehicle would be used.

Yes, I agree with what you say and the activities of your second example above do appear to be creative to the extent that they seem to stretch credibility! If he's done nothing wrong, then why pay it all back and promise not to claim again? However, it does beg the question of the vehicle being either a private car or a 'company' car. If the latter, why should expenses be allowed? If the former, then would travelling to your place of work constitute 'business use'? If so, then millions of others are guilty!


"My main point being that the Police do not normally have any problem in ascertaining whether insurance was in force for whatever the vehicle was being used for - so why the problem in this instance especially in view of the cost of all of this."

I got your well made point which is what prompted my opening sentence in my first post on this above. I suspect a mischievous or malicious complaint, possibly anonymous, with the investigation being called to avoid any accusations of 'whitewash' following resolution.

Although my view of the need for these bodies is, er, sceptical, the level of personal animosity and abuse to those in public offices in general is disgraceful and usually comes from ignorance and envy.

For travelling to a single place of work then the insurance document normally uses the term 'commuting and no other mention of business use. When full business use is in force then it normally states 'in connection with the policy holders business'. Therefore no mistake can be made and yes, if you drive to work then you require 'commuting' - very few would say it is for pleasure

And it will not be a company - she was using the car in connection with her business and no way would that not be covered if it was a company car.

And no, not a complaint, she was involved in an accident which required police to attend.

Jumper, as for your last paragraph this woman courts disaster - she appointed the youth czar who was a naughty girl and had to go + a few other things.