'Still registered as a 1.4' - Justice at last !!
Discussion
LoonR1 said:
ging84 said:
Any thing is a modification, even if just cosmetic, according to most insurers
It's saved the insurance industry millions admin now everyone no longer has to declare their tax disk, £15-45 saved per policy.
Now Just the front and rear number plate is all you need to declared on a new car, that is until you give it it's first coat of polish of course.
You still need to be very careful with tyres, you'd think you were safe sticking to the same tyres as the original, but the tyre fitters often stick weights to the wheels to balance them, always remember to declare these, and ensure they reuse the original valves.
You're making yourself look even more stupid now, if that's possible. It's saved the insurance industry millions admin now everyone no longer has to declare their tax disk, £15-45 saved per policy.
Now Just the front and rear number plate is all you need to declared on a new car, that is until you give it it's first coat of polish of course.
You still need to be very careful with tyres, you'd think you were safe sticking to the same tyres as the original, but the tyre fitters often stick weights to the wheels to balance them, always remember to declare these, and ensure they reuse the original valves.
Mound Dawg said:
I think you'll get a parrot for this Loon. He clearly taking the piss. Although reading some of the other posts here it's possible that he may not be...
It was too much truth for him he could not dispute the facts so resorted to insults, and putting down a reminder to him self to see how many injured children's claims he can try and invalidate tommorow by investigating undeclared polish.Mound Dawg said:
I think you'll get a parrot for this Loon. He clearly taking the piss. Although reading some of the other posts here it's possible that he may not be...
Definitely the second part in bold 
His posting history on PH appears to indicate he's not quite all there and / or is a free-wibblist of the highest order 
ging84 said:
It was too much truth for him he could not dispute the facts so resorted to insults, and putting down a reminder to him self to see how many injured children's claims he can try and invalidate tommorow by investigating undeclared polish.
Not really you're c,early a wibblist with daft comments like that. It's clear that you don't have even the most basic grasp of how insurance works. 
ging84 said:
Unleash all the parrots
A parrot is for when I miss your point completely amd the sarcasm in there. You mean what you're saying and have just exaggerated it. It doesn't alter the fact that you're not sure whether you're joking or not. You can hide behinfpd the parrot as much as you like, but you are talking s
t and having been called on it are trying to save face. Zulu 10 said:
I know it’s hardly an excuse, but have you ever tried explaining to the DVLA that you’ve increased the size of engine?
<snip>
Me: “Right, well I’ve discharged my legal obligation to inform you of the change. The fact that you are now using some piece of arbitrary self-initiated procedure to refuse to register the detail on the V5 is your problem not mine.”
Ten years later the V5 still says it’s a 1600.
about 6 months ago i had the same. i sent them the details, the new engine number, even a link to the build thread. they said that they wanted to have it inspected to prove that it was a 1600, not a 1300. they refuse to believe that ive changed the engine, despite me telling them, the insurance being correct, and it having been MOT'd just after i finished the swap (sent them a copy of that too, but they still dont buy it ffs!)<snip>
Me: “Right, well I’ve discharged my legal obligation to inform you of the change. The fact that you are now using some piece of arbitrary self-initiated procedure to refuse to register the detail on the V5 is your problem not mine.”
Ten years later the V5 still says it’s a 1600.
i could understand it if i was going DOWN a tax class, but i'm going up! and they are effectively refusing to take my money.....
LoonR1 said:
Red Devil said:
LoonR1 said:
rscott said:
The 12v socket was one of the mods, the others which was actually related to the repudiation attempt were the massive religious stickers on the vicar's car. - http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-... .
They were asking for clarification and advising that avoiding the policy was the ultimate potential consequenceWith examples like that, it's no wonder the public think insurers live in a parallel universe.
!Secondly, an insurer can decline a risk for any modifications. They have a certain appetite for risk and if that includes zero modifications, then that's their right. There target market will be old dears driving dull cars that attract zero attention. This isn't the case with that car.
Thirdly, in terms of increased risk, the. There's a lot of potential for damageto that, from an overly zealous religious type of another denomination, to some drunks thinking it'd be funny to wind up the local "freak" with a few stickers, or sprayed on words of their own. All of that is highly possible amd more likely to happen to this car than a normal unliveried one. Too much is being made on here of the 12v socket which would probably have been mentioned by the insurer, but not really seen as relevant. It would be them covering all bases, when their real interest was in the stickers.
Your suggestion of exclusions immediately makes her policy non-standard and the insurer may have no scope for non-standard risks under their underwriting criteria.
None of the above is really a parallel universe, but it's a nice np it of hyperbole to add to some of the other sensationalist stuff on here.
bbc article said:
They said their insurers Ageas Insurance Limited had investigated the sale of her policy.
"They have concluded that our request to declare all modifications was not made clear enough to Rev Parry and therefore she did not know which vehicle enhancements should have been declared.
"They say they will review the wording on their policy applications."
I can't find it atm but ISTR a FoS case where it found in favour of the policyholder where he had added various bit of kit (from memory they were a satnav, Bluetooth, and a CD changer). The policyholder argued that they were additions not modifications, so had answered the question in the negative. The FoS ruled that it did not see that he could reasonably have been expected to know, from what the proposal form said that he should have answered "yes" to the question about modifications."They have concluded that our request to declare all modifications was not made clear enough to Rev Parry and therefore she did not know which vehicle enhancements should have been declared.
"They say they will review the wording on their policy applications."
We don't know exactly what was asked of Rev. Parry, but it would appear that the application document in her case was also deficient as Ageas has conceded.
As to your point about the FoS having no power to compel, maybe so, but I would be somewhat surprised if an insurer decided to ignore a ruling that it should cough up.
LoonR1 said:
ging84 said:
Unleash all the parrots
A parrot is for when I miss your point completely amd the sarcasm in there. You mean what you're saying and have just exaggerated it. It doesn't alter the fact that you're not sure whether you're joking or not. You can hide behinfpd the parrot as much as you like, but you are talking st and having been called on it are trying to save face. People should declare any changes they make that alters the car from the way it was designed. This does not mean different makes of brake pads, although I would be concerned how they stop the vehicle if cheap. Fitting a 2 litre engine to a 1.4 car obviously does.
Red Devil said:
I can't find it atm but ISTR a FoS case where it found in favour of the policyholder where he had added various bit of kit (from memory they were a satnav, Bluetooth, and a CD changer). The policyholder argued that they were additions not modifications, so had answered the question in the negative. The FoS ruled that it did not see that he could reasonably have been expected to know, from what the proposal form said that he should have answered "yes" to the question about modifications.
We don't know exactly what was asked of Rev. Parry, but it would appear that the application document in her case was also deficient as Ageas has conceded.
As to your point about the FoS having no power to compel, maybe so, but I would be somewhat surprised if an insurer decided to ignore a ruling that it should cough up.
You've cleverly misquoted me there. I specifically said they have no power to force an insurer to maintain or inception a risk that they wouldn't have otherwise. I dint mention claims, which when ruled on are binding on the insurer. The case you've quoted is possibly a theft, where the insured was either trying to recoup the cost of these additions and / or these additions were the either primary or a key part of the reason for the claim. We don't know exactly what was asked of Rev. Parry, but it would appear that the application document in her case was also deficient as Ageas has conceded.
As to your point about the FoS having no power to compel, maybe so, but I would be somewhat surprised if an insurer decided to ignore a ruling that it should cough up.
Age UK may well have backed down purely due to the bad publicity angle. Companies, in all forms, often make commercial decisions that are not in line with the true technical side of their argument.
wow. Leave a thread for a weekend and it appears to have operated purely as a troll magnet.
Loon is 100% correct with pretty much everything he said, anyone countering him it seems can only do so by making ridiculous and extreme examples of something that really isn't that hard to grasp.
I genuinely weep for the future if the people saying 'oh but i've used some brake pads from halfords, you saying i should inform my insurance?' are actually being serious. - first off, its not up to anyone else, its up to you. You have the same information available to you that we do. If you still choose to be obtuse when it comes to this subject then that's your look out.
Secondly, do you really not get that engine swaps for higher power units not being declared to the DVLA and insurance is wrong ? Do you not see its allowing new drivers cars which have power outputs far beyond what they should be driving and therefore massively increasing the risk of the driver or innocent other motorists being injured as a result?
Not to mention all the other conversions where they have been done poorly and dangerously without other things being upgraded to cope with the additional power, way above what the car maker intended
The law is quite clear for anyone that has even average level intelligence
Loon is 100% correct with pretty much everything he said, anyone countering him it seems can only do so by making ridiculous and extreme examples of something that really isn't that hard to grasp.
I genuinely weep for the future if the people saying 'oh but i've used some brake pads from halfords, you saying i should inform my insurance?' are actually being serious. - first off, its not up to anyone else, its up to you. You have the same information available to you that we do. If you still choose to be obtuse when it comes to this subject then that's your look out.
Secondly, do you really not get that engine swaps for higher power units not being declared to the DVLA and insurance is wrong ? Do you not see its allowing new drivers cars which have power outputs far beyond what they should be driving and therefore massively increasing the risk of the driver or innocent other motorists being injured as a result?
Not to mention all the other conversions where they have been done poorly and dangerously without other things being upgraded to cope with the additional power, way above what the car maker intended
The law is quite clear for anyone that has even average level intelligence
_rubinho_ said:
Just spotted this evening here...
It's an A45 AMG until you read the listing and it says:
Link does not workIt's an A45 AMG until you read the listing and it says:
eBay listing said:
This car has had a full a45 conversion, on log book it shows a180, cheaper on insurance,
Reported to eBay; why do they think they can get away with it? 
Ilovejapcrap said:
_rubinho_ said:
Just spotted this evening here...
It's an A45 AMG until you read the listing and it says:
Link does not workIt's an A45 AMG until you read the listing and it says:
eBay listing said:
This car has had a full a45 conversion, on log book it shows a180, cheaper on insurance,
Reported to eBay; why do they think they can get away with it? court said:
That's a ringer if ever there was one. Nobody does that much work on an A180 LoonR1 said:
court said:
That's a ringer if ever there was one. Nobody does that much work on an A180 Remind me to stay clear of "Elite car sales" from now on.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff