On 2008-07-26 08:54:24 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:


There are rather more aspects to the story from Mr Williams.

He says that he's a self employed decorator and the unmarked van is
for personal use even claiming that it is for personal use and
getting to and from work.

"I am dumbfounded - the van is only insured for private use and to get
me to and from work," added Mr Williams, from Llanafan, near
Aberystwyth.


He isn't an employee and so this is not the standard employee use of a
personal vehicle. Secondly, are we to believe that the van is used
solely for this purpose and never in connection with his work? How do
the tools, equipment and materials arrive at his customers? Are they
delivered by somebody else? Doesn't seem likely, does it.

In a more telling revelation, he says that the vehicle is only insured
for personal use.

Then he is effectively not insured whilst driving to & from work - his
insurance company wouldn't pay out a claim in those circumstances.

Exactly my point. He may or may not be claiming use of the vehicle
as a business expense. If he is, then it is certainly a workplace
within the meaning of the legislation. If he isn't, then his
accountant should be fired, assuming he has one. In either case, he
can't have it both ways.




Mr Williams added: "I take the wife shopping in the van. It is my
private vehicle as well as my work van."

So which is it?

I can see his point, it may be the only vehicle they have, so its dual
purpose.

OK. So in that case, the legislation does consider it to be a
workplace and the rules apply.





On the one hand he now of course wants this to be a private only
vehicle in order to try to get out of the legitimately levied fine.

On the other, he is saying that it's also his work van.

But its not 'his place of work'. He doesn't carry out his trade in the van.

It's used in connection with his trade. For example, he might take
somebody else to a job because it's too large for him or may take a
customer to look at decorating materials. The legislation only
requires the possibility to exist.

If he wanted to argue the point that he is using it only personally it
would need the insurance details as well as demonstrating that there is
no claim for business use.

More generically.... I own my own car. I also take a monthly
allowance for running it and a fuel allowance as well. I work at home
when I'm in the UK, I visit customers in the UK and sometimes drive to
and from the airport. I don't actually *do* my nominal work in the
car - i.e. I don't read and write emails or speak on the phone. I
don't even allow smoking in it. At all. Does this mean that I need
to have a No Smoking sticker? The answer is yes. Sometimes I take
customers to lunch in it and sometimes colleagues. As a result it is a
workplace.





Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?

Indeed, see above. My van is insured for both uses.

As it should be.




In the general case of the legislation, it is not the ownership of the
vehicle that is the issue but the use to which it's put.

And that use is surely transport to & from his place of work - not his
actual place of work, which would be his clients premises.

No. He is confusing the home to work arrangements that employees
typically have whereby they can't claim business mileage (personal use)
with business arrangements.

Let me put it a different way. You use your van for going to places
that sell materials and for going to customers. You also have signage
on it. Do you factor the running of it into your prices and/or your
accounts or do you just donate the use of your personal vehicle to the
business and pay for all of the vehicle costs, upkeep and fuel. If
it's the latter, then it is a place of work.



For
example, employees may have a car provided by their company -
becoming less common - or may receive car allowances or mileage
allowances for business use.

So if the latter is the case, could you smoke in the vehicle.

No. The only exception would be if the vehicle is only *ever* going
to be used personally. Companies used to provide vehicles for
employees. Some still do. Many provide a car allowance. There are
two reasons. One is that having and using a decent car is required to
do the job. Secondly, it is part of their remuneration package and
they pay tax and NI on it. Nonethless, the assumed basis is that
the car will be used at least part of the time for business purposes.
Occasionally cars are provided for the wives of senior executives.
Arguably that is more of a perk than the main car. However, it's
possible that the wife might go and meet a client for example, thn it's
business use.


The real point here is that the legislation is deliberately intended to
harrass smokers, nothing else. One wonders which minority group is next on
the list?

It is intended to protect others in the vicinity who may not be able to
escape the fumes. Into the bargain it is discouraging people who do
smoke from doing so. For their health and possibly that of others,
that is a good thing. I don't think that I have read of anybody
recently saying that smoking is actually good for the health.

OTOH... the methods of implementation are poor. This hapless
taffy in his van was stopped because it was assumed, probably quite
correctly, that it was a trade vehicle. It's therefore easy to check.
Are the same gestapo going to do random stopping of cars? Probably
not.

Even so, there is little to complain about. It isn't as though there
is a blanket prohibition on smoking. What we have at this point is
that smokers can do so wherever and whenever they like, *provided that*
they do not impinge on the equal right of non smokers not to be
subjected to it.

That seems equitable to me.