Insurance Claim Affected By Car Colour Change?
Discussion
Worth noting the insurance companies dont get their info updated very often by the DVLA . My merc was incorrectly registeted by the dealer as a 280 but its a 300.. metcedes gave me a letter to correct it that i sent to the DVLA and a new logbook was issued 3 years ago.
Just renewed insurance and they still show it as a 280 and as happens every year i haid to jump through some hoops to prove it was a 300. Every insurer i have dealt with over the last 3 years tells me its impossible for it to be a 300 and ive just stuck a different badge on the back.
So its unlikely a colour change on the log book would make it through to the inurance company
Just renewed insurance and they still show it as a 280 and as happens every year i haid to jump through some hoops to prove it was a 300. Every insurer i have dealt with over the last 3 years tells me its impossible for it to be a 300 and ive just stuck a different badge on the back.
So its unlikely a colour change on the log book would make it through to the inurance company
ZOLLAR said:
Stoofa said:
jith said:
A few years ago my son had his Boxster stole from his driveway when he was in the States on holiday. It was never recovered and he duly claimed for a total loss. It was a one owner car with only 24K on the clock and full Porsche service history.
They said they would only pay half the value because his wife, who was a named driver, had an expired SP30 and hadn't declared it when he put her on the policy.
Let's just stop for a moment and try and grasp the mentality of the individual who made that decision and actually considered it acceptable and legal. What possible bearing could his wife's driving convictions have on the car being stolen when they were abroad? It is to me absolutely staggering that insurance companies actually insult your intelligence by trying on something like this.
He didn't even respond to them but got his solicitor to write to them in a pleasantly threatening manner and they paid up within 48 hours.
A sign of the times I suppose.
J
But it was OK for your son to pay a reduced premium for his insurance by not declaring that his other half had a driving conviction they decided not to mention at inception of policy?They said they would only pay half the value because his wife, who was a named driver, had an expired SP30 and hadn't declared it when he put her on the policy.
Let's just stop for a moment and try and grasp the mentality of the individual who made that decision and actually considered it acceptable and legal. What possible bearing could his wife's driving convictions have on the car being stolen when they were abroad? It is to me absolutely staggering that insurance companies actually insult your intelligence by trying on something like this.
He didn't even respond to them but got his solicitor to write to them in a pleasantly threatening manner and they paid up within 48 hours.
A sign of the times I suppose.
J
Sign of the times I suppose.
The solicitors letter is a laugh too, Solicitors and FOS are so often trotted out by people that insurers barely batter an eye lid
I doubt it made one iota bit of difference in their decision to deal.
You even go so far as to imply I'm lying.
This thread is clearly about an insurance company attempting to avoid paying a claim by using a completely irrelevant factor to the claim. I have over 40 years experience in the motor trade and I can state catagorically that they do this all the time, absolutely no doubt.
I added a personal real life example to this and you pair attempt to discredit it along with Twiggy.
If you had any idea what you were talking about you would realise that an SP30 is the offence code for exceeding the 30 MPH speed limit and I have yet to come across the insurance company who places any financial loading due to this offence, simply because in these speed camera laden days it means utterly nothing in terms of risk. He did not therefore underpay his policy.
Furthermore, had you read the post properly I stated that it had expired. But the main issue here is the fact that this was NOT a claim relating to an accident or collision: it is a simple claim for theft of the vehicle, i.e. it has nothing whatever to do with my daughter-in-law's driving convictions, even if she had them.
The solicitor's letter was sent to make a point because my son was so disgusted with this company and there is a reason for this. At this time he was a sales exec for Audi and was passing serious amounts of business their way. When this happened he felt, quite rightly, that he had been treated very poorly and the letter reinforced this. I would have done exactly the same in his position. The fact that he was paid out in 48 hours reinforces the fact that it worked. And any insurance company who doesn't take a solicitor's letter seriously needs to examine their working policies.
I could quote dozens of examples like this from experience over the years but, quitte frankly can't be bothered wasting my time with people like you. So try and think before you open your mouth.
J
jith said:
What is it about this particular forum that attracts miscreants like you? It is the same individuals every time who seem to delight in totally misreading and misconstruing what has been said. Does it give you some sort of sense of power, or you feel you have scored brownie points?
J
Oooh what a delightful sentence!J
Scoring brownie points indeed, harping about instructing solicitors and politely threatening letters, hark at you and your sense of power!
You're right, I did stop short of calling you a liar as I quite rightly don't have access to all the information in your case but I do in fact know what I am talking about when it comes to Insurance, Solicitors and the FOS, much more than you I attest.
Anyway, as ever with insurance threads this will no doubt descend into arguments etc so before the mods get all ban happy I may leave it here.
Miscreant, I do love that word.
ZOLLAR said:
jith said:
What is it about this particular forum that attracts miscreants like you? It is the same individuals every time who seem to delight in totally misreading and misconstruing what has been said. Does it give you some sort of sense of power, or you feel you have scored brownie points?
Oooh what a delightful sentence!jith said:
I added a personal real life example to this and you pair attempt to discredit it along with Twiggy.
If you had any idea what you were talking about you would realise that an SP30 is the offence code for exceeding the 30 MPH speed limit and I have yet to come across the insurance company who places any financial loading due to this offence, simply because in these speed camera laden days it means utterly nothing in terms of risk. He did not therefore underpay his policy.
Furthermore, had you read the post properly I stated that it had expired. But the main issue here is the fact that this was NOT a claim relating to an accident or collision: it is a simple claim for theft of the vehicle, i.e. it has nothing whatever to do with my daughter-in-law's driving convictions, even if she had them.
You are both wrong, and a little bit thick.If you had any idea what you were talking about you would realise that an SP30 is the offence code for exceeding the 30 MPH speed limit and I have yet to come across the insurance company who places any financial loading due to this offence, simply because in these speed camera laden days it means utterly nothing in terms of risk. He did not therefore underpay his policy.
Furthermore, had you read the post properly I stated that it had expired. But the main issue here is the fact that this was NOT a claim relating to an accident or collision: it is a simple claim for theft of the vehicle, i.e. it has nothing whatever to do with my daughter-in-law's driving convictions, even if she had them.
Firstly, the bit where you are wrong, insurance companies are prohibited by law from declining a claim for not knowing something that would not have affected their premium or underwriting of the risk had they known. So the fact that they did so means 1 speeding offence must have had a bearing. Some insurers don't charge for 1 offence, but many do.
Secondly, the bit where you are being thick, you are hung up on the claim not being relevant to the conviction. So what, see my previous terminal illness / lightning example. Do you seriously think someone who doesn't disclose a drink drive offence should have any claims paid without question because they weren't driving at the time?
Thirdly, the offence may have expired at the time of the claim, but it clearly hadn't expired when she was added on, otherwise there would have been no non disclosure and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It's clear your son failed to disclose all the facts when adding on his wife, and therefore paid less into the pot than he should have done. As someone who discloses everything, I don't see why I should have to make up the shortfall!
TooMany2cvs said:
ZOLLAR said:
jith said:
What is it about this particular forum that attracts miscreants like you? It is the same individuals every time who seem to delight in totally misreading and misconstruing what has been said. Does it give you some sort of sense of power, or you feel you have scored brownie points?
Oooh what a delightful sentence!
Now it's a Pistonheads thread. But anyway.
No specific update as of yet. It looks like - as my friend would rather keep/buy back the car - they will be sending out someone to take a look at it rather than collecting it, so I assume that will result in a conclusion of the situation one way or the other. Apparently they're checking if the car was available in that colour, but that's a different question. Does it matter if it's "black" or "red", or does it have to be the factory paint code version? I guess we shall see.
99dndd said:
If it's a repair rather than a write off, they'd get the money required to return the car to its original colour.
Well, as I said, my money is 100% on it being a write off, but in that event, he'd probably be quids in.paintman said:
That's about the only issue I could see as the cost of some of the special paints is eyewatering: http://www.specialistpaints.com/products/chromacoa... £239.99 a litre
and the work involved due to the prep & basecoats is going to take a lot of time & so more £££££££.
Yeaaaah... This is more £10 a litre stuff!and the work involved due to the prep & basecoats is going to take a lot of time & so more £££££££.
cologne2792 said:
I looked at two 406 coupes last year - one red, one blue - same age, spec, mileage.
Ran several insurance quotes and on both occasions the red one was approximately £100 dearer which as I'm 47 was substantial.
Are insurance costs really affected that much by the colour or am I missing something here ?
I bought the blue one.
I've never encounterd this myself. Perhaps an oddity of that particular insurer? Your name isn't John Icrashredcars or something?Ran several insurance quotes and on both occasions the red one was approximately £100 dearer which as I'm 47 was substantial.
Are insurance costs really affected that much by the colour or am I missing something here ?
I bought the blue one.
TooMany2cvs said:
What did he answer when they asked him if it had been modified?
Well, when they would have asked that - at policy start - he would have said "no", because it wasn't. But as I said, he is pretty sure he told them he did it, and I can't see why he wouldn't, given that he told the DVLA, and it's not something he even thought was an issue.Rick101 said:
As long as it wasn't camouflage I can't see it being a problem.
Haha! Actually, I saw a bloke the other day riding a bike in camo trousers and jacket. I wonder what his thoughts would be if he got SMIDSY'd?Mandat said:
In the OP's case, statistics might show that the type of driver who has a colour modified car is a greater risk than one who drives a non-modified car.
Hmm, I can see that. Though I can't see why it would matter when someone hit him.pork911 said:
Not if the respray was ropey 
- Cough* I'm saying nothing...
Monkeylegend said:
Probably just pub talk, maybe.
I can see it being "a thing", yes, but I guess the question is whether it actually does happen.Dodsy said:
So its unlikely a colour change on the log book would make it through to the inurance company
I agree. Do they check the DVLA themselves, or do they check a separate database that is itself updated from the DVLA? Perhaps that's a factor?TwigtheWonderkid said:
If it was camouflage you wouldn't be able to see it at all!
No specific update as of yet. It looks like - as my friend would rather keep/buy back the car - they will be sending out someone to take a look at it rather than collecting it, so I assume that will result in a conclusion of the situation one way or the other. Apparently they're checking if the car was available in that colour, but that's a different question. Does it matter if it's "black" or "red", or does it have to be the factory paint code version? I guess we shall see.
I do enjoy your posts Jith! Such a beautiful formula.
Say something a bit daft.
Someone disagrees.
Insult them.
Tell us all again about your huge experience.
You didn't mention the expert witness stuff though.
Awesome
Will you marry me?
Say something a bit daft.
Someone disagrees.
Insult them.
Tell us all again about your huge experience.
You didn't mention the expert witness stuff though.
Awesome
Will you marry me?jith said:
What is it about this particular forum that attracts miscreants like you?
I have over 40 years experience in the motor trade and I can state catagorically that they do this all the time, absolutely no doubt.
I have over 40 years experience in the motor trade and I can state catagorically that they do this all the time, absolutely no doubt.
Let me just give people a little closure so we can advance straight to the frozen sausages part of the argument cycle.
The insurers have phoned back, and said that they aren't going to consider it an issue. While that's not quite the same as them saying it's fine and not something they'd want to dig into in other circumstances, for this particular situation, it'll do just fine.
The insurers have phoned back, and said that they aren't going to consider it an issue. While that's not quite the same as them saying it's fine and not something they'd want to dig into in other circumstances, for this particular situation, it'll do just fine.
The insurance companies have to be on the look out for any signs of possible frauds and scams, so they are always going to question why a vehicle involved in an insurance claim is a different colour to the one recorded.
Think about it: Say for example you own a blue Ford Mondeo that is properly insured, and are involved in an accident so have to make an insurance claim.
When the insurance company look into the claim, they're being asked to deal with a red Mondeo rather than the blue Mondeo they were expecting to be dealing with.
The first question on their mind will be: "Is this actually the car that was insured under the policy, or is this a completely different car that was not covered by the policy?"
It's no different really to insuring a car with the registration number "AB 12 XYZ", putting a personalised number plate on it but not telling the insurance company, and then making a claim on the insurance policy for the same car but with the registration "ABC 123 A".
Any detail that doesn't match up with those officially recorded anywhere is bound to raise suspicions with an insurance company.
Think about it: Say for example you own a blue Ford Mondeo that is properly insured, and are involved in an accident so have to make an insurance claim.
When the insurance company look into the claim, they're being asked to deal with a red Mondeo rather than the blue Mondeo they were expecting to be dealing with.
The first question on their mind will be: "Is this actually the car that was insured under the policy, or is this a completely different car that was not covered by the policy?"
It's no different really to insuring a car with the registration number "AB 12 XYZ", putting a personalised number plate on it but not telling the insurance company, and then making a claim on the insurance policy for the same car but with the registration "ABC 123 A".
Any detail that doesn't match up with those officially recorded anywhere is bound to raise suspicions with an insurance company.
4rephill said:
The insurance companies have to be on the look out for any signs of possible frauds and scams, so they are always going to question why a vehicle involved in an insurance claim is a different colour to the one recorded.
Think about it: Say for example you own a blue Ford Mondeo that is properly insured, and are involved in an accident so have to make an insurance claim.
When the insurance company look into the claim, they're being asked to deal with a red Mondeo rather than the blue Mondeo they were expecting to be dealing with.
The first question on their mind will be: "Is this actually the car that was insured under the policy, or is this a completely different car that was not covered by the policy?"
It's no different really to insuring a car with the registration number "AB 12 XYZ", putting a personalised number plate on it but not telling the insurance company, and then making a claim on the insurance policy for the same car but with the registration "ABC 123 A".
Any detail that doesn't match up with those officially recorded anywhere is bound to raise suspicions with an insurance company.
Exactly right. But don't cloud the issue with facts. Tin foil hattery will always win over common sense in these debates.Think about it: Say for example you own a blue Ford Mondeo that is properly insured, and are involved in an accident so have to make an insurance claim.
When the insurance company look into the claim, they're being asked to deal with a red Mondeo rather than the blue Mondeo they were expecting to be dealing with.
The first question on their mind will be: "Is this actually the car that was insured under the policy, or is this a completely different car that was not covered by the policy?"
It's no different really to insuring a car with the registration number "AB 12 XYZ", putting a personalised number plate on it but not telling the insurance company, and then making a claim on the insurance policy for the same car but with the registration "ABC 123 A".
Any detail that doesn't match up with those officially recorded anywhere is bound to raise suspicions with an insurance company.
4rephill said:
When the insurance company look into the claim, they're being asked to deal with a red Mondeo rather than the blue Mondeo they were expecting to be dealing with.
The first question on their mind will be: "Is this actually the car that was insured under the policy, or is this a completely different car that was not covered by the policy?"
I would agree with you on that as a baseline, but the impression I got was that their questions were less "is this the same vehicle?" and more "has this vehicle been modified?".The first question on their mind will be: "Is this actually the car that was insured under the policy, or is this a completely different car that was not covered by the policy?"
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff