Will your car be 'Historic' or not?...

I really dont get what you're trying to say, apart from the blindingly obvious 'it does not imply daily use'. That statement *appears* to imply that you think that it does not imply daily use. ANY insurance policy for a car implies as much use as you want (limited mileage policies notwithstanding) for the travel types that you are covered for. Having a clause that permits travel for commuting purposes, it is absolutely categorically valid that you can go to work in it every single day of the year. All you have been saying to defend your position is that going once a year or every day still requires commuting cover, and I've not suggested otherwise. Yes, you need commuting cover if you ever want to use it for commuting. However, you DONT need 'lots of commuting special cover' if you go every day, as opposed to vanilla flavoured 'commuting cover'. Thats it. Its not hard to grasp. You have commuting cover? Great! Go to work as often as you like. There isn't a limit. The cover does imply that you can use it every day.

Your argument appears to be that it isn't an orange, so its an apple. I've agreed it isn't an orange. But it isn't an apple either. The fact that any commuting at all requires commuting travel doesn't mean automatically that its only a given amount thats covered. Show any unlimited mileage policy that covers commuting, but LIMITS the amount of times you can use that cover.

No, thats categorically not so, and what you've written to justify your position is completely unrelated, since all you've said is that you must HAVE that cover in order to use it for that purpose.

The message

from Ian contains these words:

Commuting doesn't imply daily travel in any event. It implies regular travel to and from a place of work which of course includes daily travel but doesn't exclude regular travel at a lower frequency.

If an insurance company is misguided enough to actually use 'commuting' in its policy it would need to define what it means by it as the person who only occasionally attends a place of work is not a commuter. OTOH a commuter who occasionally uses his car but generally has another means of travel is still a commuter should he use his car to travel to work on any occasion.

My covernote is commendably clear. On the front it says I am insured for "Use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes" and in the notes on the reverse it says "Social, domestic and pleasure use includes travel to and from one permanent place of business, duty or study provided business calls are not made en route".

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. All I mean was that "commuting cover is needed for occasional trips to work" ie it doesn't have to be daily to require the cover. Once you have the cover then of course you are quite right - you can make the trip as often as you like, subject to mileage restrictions.

So we're both right, really , because we're saying different things

IJ: "Commuting cover isn't only needed for daily travel to work"

PL: "Commuting cover allows you to make daily journeys to work"

Regards,

Ian

Agreed.

My experience is that companies ask if you want "commuting" cover, but then issue a policy which avoids the word and instead talks about journeys to usual (or permanent) places of work. I'm interested to see that your SDP cover includes it - I've had to specify it, albeit at no cost, for the last couple of policies I've taken out.

Moral: if you want to drive to work, check your insurance.

Ian

Like most places, at least until they complied with the relevant US C&U regs, assuming that they allowed the non bonded front and rear screens! Chris should remember that much of the bullshit he complains about started in the USA, who remembers those high rubber bumpers that had to be fitted to UK and European sports cars in 1970s, and the Mini wasn't exempt from the nonsense either (although they never had to succumb to rubber bumpers)...

I wasn't actually thinking of the US...

So unless you are thinking South America you're still going to have the same sort of issues, even Australia/New Zealand have issues for those importing cars from the UK - I know someone who worked out in OZ for a while, with the intention of emigrating (could have done so there and then, had all the papers etc.) and actually got to the point of arranging for a container to put is EU manufactured car into and then decided that it would be cheaper and quicker to just buy a car out in OZ...

OZ has classified cars as importable only if no equivalent is mass marketed in OZ and it has to meet other requirements as an "enthusiast's car". Cut off date before which no approval is needed was set at 15 years in 2005 and is fixed until it reaches 30 at which time it will start rolling.

The date being 17 Dec 2008, "Charles Hamilton" top-posted:

Quite correct. If you have an accident on the way to work the insurance company doesn't know whether you've been making the same journey every day or once in a blue moon.

But what would happen if the Xantia refused to start?

I had a relative who (some years ago) had a 15 mile commute to work, and he was expected to arrive and start work before the first bus in the morning.

He had a Sierra to commute daily to work, but in the barn was an early cone-suspension Mini Countryman with tax and MOT. On the few mornings when the Sierra wouldn't start, the Mini always did - first time - and it took him to work. It was probably not more than half a dozen times a year, but technically he did commute in it.

Jim

That's why my classics all have commuting cover (the DS has full business use as well) - I don't use them to get to work, but I like to be able to, if required.

Ian

FWIW, all Countrymans were cone suspension - hydro is unsuitable for estates as the back end would sit down when loaded. And later cars all reverted to cone as it was cheaper. I still have two hydro cars - the ride is lovely!

I didn't know the Countryman never went hysro - but I do now. Though the one I mentioned was 1961 so pre-hydro anyway.

Jim