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

[LoonR1]

photosnob said:

I think Loon has made a fair point with regards to insurance - but when I posted what I did, and someone else made a simple point I wasn't talking about insurance in it's current form. There is a world of difference between an insurance company and a civil claim - and a criminal prosecution. The idea of what is reasonable is up for discussion a lot more when you are talking about "behond all reasonable doubt" - is it really beyond reasonable doubt that an unqualified person would not know if a car had at some point been lowered?

And as I've said - until their are fast and clear rules about what is and isn't a modification I don't like this at all. My definition of a modification is something that improves a car, makes it faster or makes it look more to your taste. And as I've said is a new set of wiper blades a modification? Is a new alternator a modification? Even if you fit the same parts because they are at a different age to the rest of the system it will change the way they work... Nearly every car on the road older than 5 years old will be "modified" - where is the datebase of exactly what a car came with as standard? How do I know what tyres came with the car??? And heaven forbid - what if a part is discontinued? At that point is my car forever a modified car?

Again - it's slightly pedantic, but if anyone doesn't think a solicitor is going to make those sorts of points then they havn't been around criminal solicitors. I'd say the right and reasonable thing to do would be to draft proper legislation, rather than trying to bodge old legislation to fit. However I'm not convinced it's a big enough problem to warrant it. So in summary - I think the police should worry about more pressing matters.

I'm not sure what your point is.

If you're suggesting that swapping a worn part for an OE or equivalent aftermarket standard part is a modification then you're wide of the mark. However, swapping it for a part that's designed to improve the vehicle is a modification. Not all modifications will improve a vehicle though, such as wrapping the car, or putting some awful decals on it.

The fact is that we all really know what a modification is and what should be declared, but we like dancing around and coming up with whacky scenarios.

[V8forweekends]

Nezquick said:

TankRizzo said:

i.e. it's farked and we don't want you to find out until it's too late.

I know - it's been for sale for about 12 months now, perhaps more. No wonder really.

Nezquick said:

It's registered as a 1.0 City E......it's about as far from a 1.0 City E as you can get. If you're going to modify something in that way and spend thousands doing it, why not go the whole hog and make it legal?

Baffling!

Illegal number plates (they are) is the least of the worries. That car's been so extensively modded it probably needs a BIVA test (which it would fail) before it would be properly road legal again. Lots more money needed to make legal - I guess they are hoping to sell it to someone who only wants a track car or who is too ignorant to know what they are buying. If it could be easily registered correctly, no doubt they'd have done it in year.

Edited by V8forweekends on Saturday 14th March 00:12

Edited by V8forweekends on Saturday 14th March 00:13

[Red Devil]

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 consequence

At the end of the article it seems clear that Age UK Insurance decided to back track from their earlier stance. Would I be right in thinking that some stickers and a 12V socket in the boot would never have flown as a reason to void the policy if Rev. Parry had made a complaint to the FOS? Seriously, those 'mods' would really have caused Age UK Insurance to have declined to insure had they known about them? What additional risk would the insurer have been taking on? Surely all it would have needed is a specific exclusion for the cost of re-stickering the vehicle if they were defaced or damaged?

With examples like that, it's no wonder the public think insurers live in a parallel universe.

Nezquick said:

It's like this which is for sale:
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2014...

It's registered as a 1.0 City E......it's about as far from a 1.0 City E as you can get. If you're going to modify something in that way and spend thousands doing it, why not go the whole hog and make it legal?

Baffling!

TCS is clearly a trader rather than a private individual. So what offence(s), if any, are they be committing by offering a car for sale with a defective V5C? Would that be of interest to the DVLA and Trading Standards?

[ging84]

I am sure Loon will say this total bks as usual
but from what i understand, an insurer can void a policy for non disclosure of material facts, but they cannot void a policy for failing to meet a contractual obligation to inform them of a change.
So someone who knowingly insurers an modified vehicle without declaring it, can be in a lot of trouble, but someone who modifies an vehicle after taking out insurance, and fails to declare it, commits no offence, the only cover which can potentially be effected is the covered to the insured vehicle.

[Fluid]

Pixelpeep7r said:

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

What on earth did you have as a first car?

I passed in 1998 as well, at 24. First car was a Peugeot 205 GTi, insurance was £410 a year.

[LoonR1]

ging84 said:

I am sure Loon will say this total bks as usual
but from what i understand, an insurer can void a policy for non disclosure of material facts, but they cannot void a policy for failing to meet a contractual obligation to inform them of a change.
So someone who knowingly insurers an modified vehicle without declaring it, can be in a lot of trouble, but someone who modifies an vehicle after taking out insurance, and fails to declare it, commits no offence, the only cover which can potentially be effected is the covered to the insured vehicle.

The thing is, I may well say it's bks, because it's half cocked at best. The situation you describe above would be a nailed on reason for refusal to pay for any damage to your own vehicle. Otherwise what's to stop me insuring a normal 1.0 Corsa and sticking a 4.0 V8 in it (other whether it would fit to start with).

The cover for third parties has a shedload of pitfalls around it, way too many to cover off here, but put simply, If the insurer would not have taken on the risk if they had been fully aware of the modifications either at inception stage or during the life of the policy, then they can avoid the policy. There are quite a few hoops to go through, it it is highly likely that they would succeed. It would be trickier after a claim, but not impossible Google anne Bissmire for that.

[untakenname]

Thousands of cars must be driving around with non oem exhausts from Quickfit,non standard brake pads from Halfords etc, do they have to be declared to the insurer?

When looking to buy my RX8 I saw one at a second hand dealership that had Bilstien/Prodrive suspension taken from the PZ edition but no mention of it was made as I don't think the salesman had a clue it wasn't stock.

If I bought the car and declared it as standard then crashed would the insurance pay out or would I be facing a criminal record ontop?

[LoonR1]

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 consequence

At the end of the article it seems clear that Age UK Insurance decided to back track from their earlier stance. Would I be right in thinking that some stickers and a 12V socket in the boot would never have flown as a reason to void the policy if Rev. Parry had made a complaint to the FOS? Seriously, those 'mods' would really have caused Age UK Insurance to have declined to insure had they known about them? What additional risk would the insurer have been taking on? Surely all it would have needed is a specific exclusion for the cost of re-stickering the vehicle if they were defaced or damaged?

With examples like that, it's no wonder the public think insurers live in a parallel universe. !

Firstly, the FOS have no power to force an insurer to accept, or maintain any risk or policy that they would otherwise have declined, so that's out of the window.

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.

[Frenchda]

LoonR1 said:

Firstly, the FOS have no power to force an insurer to accept, or maintain any risk or policy that they would otherwise have declined, so that's out of the window.

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.

Out of interest, what about "stickering up for Le Mans". I think I have asked before but cannot recall the answer. Would this potentially void your insurance?

[98elise]

untakenname said:

Thousands of cars must be driving around with non oem exhausts from Quickfit,non standard brake pads from Halfords etc, do they have to be declared to the insurer?

When looking to buy my RX8 I saw one at a second hand dealership that had Bilstien/Prodrive suspension taken from the PZ edition but no mention of it was made as I don't think the salesman had a clue it wasn't stock.

If I bought the car and declared it as standard then crashed would the insurance pay out or would I be facing a criminal record ontop?

Last time I insured a modified car they asked very specific questions. They would all be very obvious to most people. Examples were if the suspension was more than 25mm (IIRC) lower than standard. No mention of make, OEM, quality.

They only care about what affects a cars risk. Brake pads from halfords or exhausts from kwick fit do not affect risk otherwise it would appear in their list of questions.

If you answer question honestly and or the "mods" make no difference to the performance or look of the car, they they really don't care.

[Mr2Mike]

Glosphil said:

Why would a car with 250hp require more powerful brakes to stop then a car with 130hp? Unless of course you kept your foot to the floor on the accelerator when braking! Or are you suggesting that a car with 250hp will always be stopping from a higher speed than a car with 250hp?

Don't be so daft. Ask yourself why the higher powered versions of manufactures cars have larger, more expensive brakes if the ones from the bottom of the line model are perfectly adequate? People don't tend upgrade to a higher powered car, or increase the power of their existing car only to drive around at exactly the same speed as they did before.

[LoonR1]

Frenchda said:

Out of interest, what about "stickering up for Le Mans". I think I have asked before but cannot recall the answer. Would this potentially void your insurance?

Potentially yes. You should ring and advise your insurers. They may not care, or they may care. There is no standard answer other than ring your insurer and find out.

[ging84]

LoonR1 said:

The fact is that we all really know what a modification is and what should be declared, but we like dancing around and coming up with whacky scenarios.

LoonR1 said:

Potentially yes. You should ring and advise your insurers. They may not care, or they may care. There is no standard answer other than ring your insurer and find out.

The standard answer should not be ring your insurer, they are not independent or transparent, they can perfectly legally, charge you an admin fee for noting down information, that information may make no difference to their underwriting criteria, but they can still charge.
It needs to be made clearer

[LoonR1]

ging84 said:

The standard answer should not be ring your insurer, they are not independent or transparent, they can perfectly legally, charge you an admin fee for noting down information, that information may make no difference to their underwriting criteria, but they can still charge.
It needs to be made clearer

And we're off into Wibbleland again. It is perfectly clear in the T&Cs you modify your car and you must advise the insurer either at inception or when the modification is made during the life of the policyholder.

Or would you prefer all insurers to state exactly what constitutes a modification and list every single possible scenario. People complain about "small print" now. Can you imagine what your policy booklet would be like. Oh and if we can do it for modifications we can do it for every conceivable scenario that could happen to someone ever in their life such as having kids, moving house, moving area. We could list every single postcode and every type of house and every possible scenario of kids and family with every possible age range and age gap between then and we'd have to cater for every scenario up to octuplets or should we go higher?

Maybe we could list every colour of car by manufacturer and every single possible option available on every single car and tell you what's standard on all of then too just in case you ever decide to buy one.

Of course we can do all this for free and your premium will never rise because of all the extra admin involved in doing this.

Edited by LoonR1 on Saturday 14th March 10:33

[Neonblau]

ging84 said:

The standard answer should not be ring your insurer, they are not independent or transparent, they can perfectly legally, charge you an admin fee for noting down information, that information may make no difference to their underwriting criteria, but they can still charge.
It needs to be made clearer

Business that provides services in "charge for service" shocker!

[PorkInsider]

ging84 said:

The standard answer should not be ring your insurer,

What's the alternative?

Is it don't ask the insurer, don't declare the stickers, then, when someone who has taken a dislike to the Le Mans mob keys your car, don't expect to get paid out for it?

[Jayho]

Pixelpeep7r said:

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

I passed only a year before yourself, 2007. MY first car was a 1.1 Saxo, which cost me Just shy of £1000 to insure. It was a lot of money for me to pay, but I sucked it up and paid. During my learning year I also earned a form of Name driver NCB, which help reduce my premiums. Ever since then, every car I've owned I've insured for less than £1000.
Many times I've been tempted to buy something which at that point would be over thousands to insure. But before committing to buying it I would always check my insurance and quantify the premium. I would simply look at the premium, compare it to what I had at that moment, and think about other things I would rather spend my money on. Even when I had a lightly modified Suzuki I declared all Mods I knew about (Wasnt standard when I bought it) and spent the time to phone the insurance company when getting quotes explaining the modifications. This actually rarely resulted in a huge hike in premiums, just a simple "Thanks for letting us know, new paperwork will be with you".
I'm now in my mid 20's, having never paid over £1000 for car insurance, driving a decent enough (for what I require) E90 320D and spending just shy of £400 for insurance. At this age I can probably afford to buy and insure something a lot quicker, but it's all about quantifying my wants with my needs. I can quite simply say, even though I can afford to buy, run and insure a significantly quicker car (and boy am I tempted a lot of the time), it is not what I require at this moment in time as I am saving to get on the property market.

Insurance I'm sure is a lot higher as with our new "I'll sue you" attitude to everything has meant outlay of insurance is a lot more expensive. The amount of damage which a car can do nowadays is a lot more too, even though the car which Billy, aged 19, drives is only a £3000 VW Polo, doesnt mean that he cant crash said Polo into a £80k Jag F-Type. Got to remember cars are getting a lot harder to fix and normal drivers are driving a lot more expensive cars. I predict that insurance is going to take another huge hike at some point too, with Lease deals skyrocketing popularity, now your average driver £25k car for £250 a month. Meaning cars you can hit are newer and more expensive.

[Countdown]

PorkInsider said:

What's the alternative?

Is it don't ask the insurer, don't declare the stickers, then, when someone who has taken a dislike to the Le Mans mob keys your car, don't expect to get paid out for it?

But where do you draw the line? I'm generally of the "follow every rule" type but even I wouldn't have thought that a "Praise be to jeebus" sticker would need declaring. What about a "Baby on Board" or "I brake for children" badge? Is this going to upset people?

[LoonR1]

Countdown said:

But where do you draw the line? I'm generally of the "follow every rule" type but even I wouldn't have thought that a "Praise be to jeebus" sticker would need declaring. What about a "Baby on Board" or "I brake for children" badge? Is this going to upset people?

One set are stuck to the outside of the car and are about six inches high and six foot long. The other one is a temporary suction cup sticker on the insider the window. Hardly the same thing

[Corbeliere]

I must admit to being very surprised when I told my insurance company of the mods I had carried out to my last car. It was a 4.2 XJR. The mods were; upgraded supercharger inlet and filter, 200 cell cats and sports exhaust, drilled and vented brake discs and a later model front grille.
My surprise was that it didn't affect the policy price one bit and Adrian Flux were just happy that I had let them know.
Maybe there's a lesson to be learned there.