'Still registered as a 1.4' - Justice at last !!

[Pixelpeep7r]

AndrewEH1 said:

Jayho said:

What I find nowadays is that more and more young people are seeing driving as a right, and not a privilege. If you cannot afford to insure your car properly, then you cannot afford to drive that car.

When did you start driving?

I started in 2008, insurance for an basic car was +£3,500 for a 18 year old male.

If anything the roads have got safer in the last +50 years, there is no reason why it should be so high for new drivers.

Edit: I'm not supporting undeclared mods though!

but they still pay it - so why not pay it for the right size engined car while you learn to drive properly ?

people need to realise there are no shortcuts. insurance is too much for high performance cars for new drivers because they are NEW drivers and FAR more likely to have a crash.

Wait a few years like everyone else had to.

I passed in 1998, i was 26 as well. Still paid over £1400 a year insurance for the first few years.

my insurance now on a 300bhp Golf R is £300 a year. Happy days

[OvalOwl]

photosnob said:

I hope my car is perfectly standard then... I brought it secondhand so have no idea if anyone has played with it...

Which is why I answer any insco's question about modifications with, "None, as far as I know."

[Pixelpeep7r]

OvalOwl said:

photosnob said:

I hope my car is perfectly standard then... I brought it secondhand so have no idea if anyone has played with it...

Which is why I answer any insco's question about modifications with, "None, as far as I know."

'ignorance is no defence'

Surely basic checks such as making sure the engine numbers match the logbook which are the drivers responsibility when buying said car in the first place would have highlighted the fact that something non standard is going on?

[roofer]

Would it not fall under

Obtaining insurance for a pecuniary advantage ? Or has that been binned ?

[longblackcoat]

Pixelpeep7r said:

OvalOwl said:

photosnob said:

I hope my car is perfectly standard then... I brought it secondhand so have no idea if anyone has played with it...

Which is why I answer any insco's question about modifications with, "None, as far as I know."

'ignorance is no defence'

Surely basic checks such as making sure the engine numbers match the logbook which are the drivers responsibility when buying said car in the first place would have highlighted the fact that something non standard is going on?

I've been driving for 35 years, have owned probably 70 cars and have NEVER cheched the engine number to the logbook. Never even thought about it.

[Pixelpeep7r]

longblackcoat said:

I've been driving for 35 years, have owned probably 70 cars and have NEVER cheched the engine number to the logbook. Never even thought about it.

So it has never concerned you that the engine might be stolen/not original ?

[LoonR1]

AndrewEH1 said:

When did you start driving?

I started in 2008, insurance for an basic car was +£3,500 for a 18 year old male.

If anything the roads have got safer in the last +50 years, there is no reason why it should be so high for new drivers.

Edit: I'm not supporting undeclared mods though!

No reason? No reason?

You might change your mind when you see the frequency and severity of young driver claims. This has been compounded since the dawn of No Win, No Fee.

[Vaud]

Pixelpeep7r said:

So it has never concerned you that the engine might be stolen/not original ?

Do you check engine number when you buy a new car?

Same with mods. How do I check if my engine ECU is original? Or that the diff is original and not a mod? etc.

[Pixelpeep7r]

Vaud said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

So it has never concerned you that the engine might be stolen/not original ?

Do you check engine number when you buy a new car?
Same with mods. How do I check if my engine ECU is original? Or that the diff is original and not a mod? etc.

I've never bought a car without having it inspected where those checks are done as part of the inspection.

Parts that don't have a number or are not easily identifiable as correct/original then thats a different matter isn't it.

Lets not stretch the examples beyond the realms of possibility just to try and add weight to the original point.

[Vaud]

Pixelpeep7r said:

I've never bought a car without having it inspected where those checks are done as part of the inspection.

Parts that don't have a number or are not easily identifiable as correct/original then thats a different matter isn't it.

Lets not stretch the examples beyond the realms of possibility just to try and add weight to the original point.

OK, so ignorance is a defence, just checking.

[Pixelpeep7r]

Vaud said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

I've never bought a car without having it inspected where those checks are done as part of the inspection.

Parts that don't have a number or are not easily identifiable as correct/original then thats a different matter isn't it.

Lets not stretch the examples beyond the realms of possibility just to try and add weight to the original point.

OK, so ignorance is a defence, just checking.

Reductio ad absurdum seems to feature heavily in your retorts i have noticed.

taking REASONABLE steps to ensure your car is legal, roadworthy and as advertised i would have thought is the norm rather than the exception that is you.

By paying a professional and qualified engineer to inspect the car i have taken steps to ensure everything is as it should be. By using your 'not giving a st' buying style then you are opening yourself up to all kinds of risks.

However If you are fine with that then i am too because i don't really give a fk what consciences you suffer as a result.

[Pixelpeep7r]

i forgot the smiley

[LoonR1]

Vaud said:

Do you check engine number when you buy a new car?

Same with mods. How do I check if my engine ECU is original? Or that the diff is original and not a mod? etc.

The test for an insurer is one of reasonableness. Would a reasonable person recognise that there were modifications or not?

So an air filter, a remapping on a diesel or similar hidden part won't cause issues if it was fitted by a previous owner.

A mahoosive new engine, noisy exhuast, lowered suspension etc are all well within the realms of a reasonable person to spot them and therefore declare them.

No doubt GrimNasty will be along soon to tell me I'm wrong, but I'm not.

[LucreLout]

LoonR1 said:

The test for an insurer is one of reasonableness. Would a reasonable person recognise that there were modifications or not?

So an air filter, a remapping on a diesel or similar hidden part won't cause issues if it was fitted by a previous owner.

A mahoosive new engine, noisy exhuast, lowered suspension etc are all well within the realms of a reasonable person to spot them and therefore declare them.

No doubt GrimNasty will be along soon to tell me I'm wrong, but I'm not.

I generally agree with that, but considering my neighbour who has a blob eye impreza wrx.... How is he supposed to know what is standard and what is not? He was driving around in a 1.6 focus until his wife left him (no, this really is my neighbour!) so its not unreasonable for him to find the car quick.
I like cars. Always have. But I have no clue if the cannon looking exhaust is standard of if it should have had a twin barrel backbox. So, how's he supposed to know? Or would an insurer make allowances for that type of car and a middle aged man insuring it?

[LucreLout]

AndrewEH1 said:

When did you start driving?

I started in 2008, insurance for an basic car was +£3,500 for a 18 year old male.

If anything the roads have got safer in the last +50 years, there is no reason why it should be so high for new drivers.

Edit: I'm not supporting undeclared mods though!

I started driving over 20 years ago and insurance cost me £500.00 which is very roughly the equivalent of £900 now.

The key difference being lack of ambulance chasers coining it in after an accident, no mobile phones to get distracted by, and the roads being a lot quieter.

Unfortunately, insurance for kids is expensive due to the quantity and severity of the accidents they have, so if they can't afford it, well, the bus is over there ----->

[Roo]

Pixelpeep7r said:

longblackcoat said:

I've been driving for 35 years, have owned probably 70 cars and have NEVER cheched the engine number to the logbook. Never even thought about it.

So it has never concerned you that the engine might be stolen/not original ?

There's a large percentage of cars where the V5 states 'Not known' or 'Not stated' for the engine number.

[MartyG1987]

A friend of mine was caught after turbo charging his 106 gti,

Police gave him 7 days to get the vehicle insured correctly otherwise they were going to charge him with no insurance.

[Rude-boy]

Zulu 10 said:

Ten years later the V5 still says it’s a 1600.

BMW made only 2 RHD 2002 tii Tourings. One was gifted to a Mr S. Moss and the other comprehensively wrapped round a tree not long after it was imported here.

DVLA refused to believe that the car Dad has just bought was a 'normal' ti and refused to change the log book.

That's likely made someone a few pennies (Dad owned it in the late 80's) given the recent rise in prices if they have spotted it.

[Rude-boy]

LucreLout said:

LoonR1 said:

The test for an insurer is one of reasonableness. Would a reasonable person recognise that there were modifications or not?

So an air filter, a remapping on a diesel or similar hidden part won't cause issues if it was fitted by a previous owner.

A mahoosive new engine, noisy exhuast, lowered suspension etc are all well within the realms of a reasonable person to spot them and therefore declare them.

No doubt GrimNasty will be along soon to tell me I'm wrong, but I'm not.

I generally agree with that, but considering my neighbour who has a blob eye impreza wrx.... How is he supposed to know what is standard and what is not? He was driving around in a 1.6 focus until his wife left him (no, this really is my neighbour!) so its not unreasonable for him to find the car quick.
I like cars. Always have. But I have no clue if the cannon looking exhaust is standard of if it should have had a twin barrel backbox. So, how's he supposed to know? Or would an insurer make allowances for that type of car and a middle aged man insuring it?

I have no idea if it is watertight, I doubt it but expect if would be highly persuasive, but I make a point of confirming all modifications I am aware of and also stating that I purchased the car secondhand and therefore there made possibly be others I am unaware of. For example both 968's have MO30 ARB's rather than the boggo ones. No way in hell I would have known that as I pay others to crawl under my cars for me and only knew because I saw them in invoices.

[V8forweekends]

LucreLout said:

I generally agree with that, but considering my neighbour who has a blob eye impreza wrx.... How is he supposed to know what is standard and what is not? He was driving around in a 1.6 focus until his wife left him (no, this really is my neighbour!) so its not unreasonable for him to find the car quick.
I like cars. Always have. But I have no clue if the cannon looking exhaust is standard of if it should have had a twin barrel backbox. So, how's he supposed to know? Or would an insurer make allowances for that type of car and a middle aged man insuring it?

Most of the ads for these are full of bragging detail about all the mods they've had done (unless they haven't) so if he's recently bought it, he almost certainly knows what's on it (I used to have a blob eye)

I find a lot of these "I didn't know" conversations a little suspect - I've seen quite a few forums where people brag openly about not declaring performance mods to their insurer because "they'll never know and if they ask, I'll just say I didn't know" in common with our general "it's only wrong if anyone finds you out" contemporary mores.