Legality / penalty for DECAT?
Discussion
AndyRw said:
Bear in mind the acts shown on the OPSI website are of the act as published, so any changes in the legislation arising from later acts aren't reflected in it..
Rather than using OPSI, the UK Statute Law Database, whilst not being completely up to date (yet), does show many legislative amendments inserted into the relevant Acts..
Since you dont need a cat for an mot I see no reason why its removal should be treated any different than say a blocked air filter or a misfire as both and many other things can effect emissions.
I would suggest if the car failed a roadside emissions test whether it had or didnt have a cat is incidental the important bit is that it failed. It would need a retest as required and may have to have a cat fitted or other adjustments made in order to pass
My Skyline has no cat and sails through mots every year , my Mercedes E class has three cats as standard and i removed the two in the main exhaust system , as its a diesel its not subject to emissions tests anyhow.
My insurance broker is A plan and they are quite used to modified cars
I would suggest if the car failed a roadside emissions test whether it had or didnt have a cat is incidental the important bit is that it failed. It would need a retest as required and may have to have a cat fitted or other adjustments made in order to pass
My Skyline has no cat and sails through mots every year , my Mercedes E class has three cats as standard and i removed the two in the main exhaust system , as its a diesel its not subject to emissions tests anyhow.
My insurance broker is A plan and they are quite used to modified cars
Section 148 refers to Section 145, which is Third Party Liabilty. Are you talking about your damage ? In which case the RTA is unlikely to be of help.
In this instance, you need to refer to the FSA Insurance Conduct of Business (ICOB) which is pretty clear that claims should not be refused unfairly.
An insurer must not:
(1) unreasonably reject a claim made by a customer;
(2) except where there is evidence of fraud, refuse to meet a claim
made by a retail customer on the grounds:
"(a) of non-disclosure of a fact material to the risk that the retail
customer who took out the policy could not reasonably be
expected to have disclosed; "
(b) of misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk, unless
the misrepresentation is negligent;
"(c) in the case of a general insurance contract, of breach of
warranty or condition, unless the circumstances of the claim
are connected with the breach; or"
1) You told them. So no non-disclosure. Even if they didn't understand it, you had "put them on notice".
2) A decat would be highly unlikely to be connected with the circumstances. So no warranty breach.
Unless there is something else, I cannot see there being any chance that a decat would cause a claim to be repudiated.
In this instance, you need to refer to the FSA Insurance Conduct of Business (ICOB) which is pretty clear that claims should not be refused unfairly.
An insurer must not:
(1) unreasonably reject a claim made by a customer;
(2) except where there is evidence of fraud, refuse to meet a claim
made by a retail customer on the grounds:
"(a) of non-disclosure of a fact material to the risk that the retail
customer who took out the policy could not reasonably be
expected to have disclosed; "
(b) of misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk, unless
the misrepresentation is negligent;
"(c) in the case of a general insurance contract, of breach of
warranty or condition, unless the circumstances of the claim
are connected with the breach; or"
1) You told them. So no non-disclosure. Even if they didn't understand it, you had "put them on notice".
2) A decat would be highly unlikely to be connected with the circumstances. So no warranty breach.
Unless there is something else, I cannot see there being any chance that a decat would cause a claim to be repudiated.
hi all just something i picked up on as car mods enthusiast, having reading no end of comments about decats and decating/car exhausts.
declaring mods/decats to insurance companies, if it's so illegal to have a decat on, and it would not pass an MOT legally, then what i can't understand is why the insurance companies class it as a modification and take your money hence bump up your premiums, until you have an accident then the awkward bit, say the insurance companies try to use this as an excuse, if the police were to be involved, would the insurance companies not be in big trouble, hence taking payment /bumping your premiums up and knowing fine well that it is an essential part of an MOT TO PASS THIS, THAT THE CAR HAS TO HAVE A CATALYTIC CONVERTER AND ALSO KNOWING THAT THIS A ESSENTIAL PART REGs REQUIREMENT. ISN'T THIS FRAUD AND DECEPTION ON THE INSURANCE COMPANIES PART
if it was me declaring mods/decats on my car i would definitely get this in black and white in letter form confirming what mods you have declared to be safe as a back up i would definitely recommend this to all..
i would be happy to here all comments on this please
kind regards
tony
declaring mods/decats to insurance companies, if it's so illegal to have a decat on, and it would not pass an MOT legally, then what i can't understand is why the insurance companies class it as a modification and take your money hence bump up your premiums, until you have an accident then the awkward bit, say the insurance companies try to use this as an excuse, if the police were to be involved, would the insurance companies not be in big trouble, hence taking payment /bumping your premiums up and knowing fine well that it is an essential part of an MOT TO PASS THIS, THAT THE CAR HAS TO HAVE A CATALYTIC CONVERTER AND ALSO KNOWING THAT THIS A ESSENTIAL PART REGs REQUIREMENT. ISN'T THIS FRAUD AND DECEPTION ON THE INSURANCE COMPANIES PART
if it was me declaring mods/decats on my car i would definitely get this in black and white in letter form confirming what mods you have declared to be safe as a back up i would definitely recommend this to all..
i would be happy to here all comments on this please
kind regards
tony
All petrol engined vehicles manufactured from 1992 onward are fitted with catalytic convertors as standard, so the first MOTs to carry out a catalsyt specification emmissions test came in 1995. Up until IIRC October 2013 as long as these vehicles passed the Cat spec test everything was fine whether the cat was fitted or not , and there were plenty off vehicles which would pass without the cat. Fast forward to 2013 and with the attempts to standardise vehicle standards throughtout the EU it became a condition that the cat had to be fitted. Personally if it was my vehicle an I knew it could pass without the cat I would simply knock the honeycomb out of the cat and leave it fitted, no dismantling is allowed on test t o check for such mods.
Highly illegal to run a car with a Decat in the UK!
This is taken straight from the government website. You can received fines in the thousands for running a car without a catalytic converter when it should have one on from factory. Also if you decide to ignore this then just know that you are contributing to poisons in the air that we breathe and contributing to the deaths of people every year as the air becomes more and more polluted.
I don`t know about you but I would rather prefer to be safe in the knowledge that that I am running a proper factory catalytic converter that filters out these poisons, for the sake of losing a few BHP.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modifyi...
This is taken straight from the government website. You can received fines in the thousands for running a car without a catalytic converter when it should have one on from factory. Also if you decide to ignore this then just know that you are contributing to poisons in the air that we breathe and contributing to the deaths of people every year as the air becomes more and more polluted.
I don`t know about you but I would rather prefer to be safe in the knowledge that that I am running a proper factory catalytic converter that filters out these poisons, for the sake of losing a few BHP.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modifyi...
sammyhale30 said:
Highly illegal to run a car with a Decat in the UK!
This is taken straight from the government website. You can received fines in the thousands for running a car without a catalytic converter when it should have one on from factory. Also if you decide to ignore this then just know that you are contributing to poisons in the air that we breathe and contributing to the deaths of people every year as the air becomes more and more polluted.
I don`t know about you but I would rather prefer to be safe in the knowledge that that I am running a proper factory catalytic converter that filters out these poisons, for the sake of losing a few BHP.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modifyi...
Two things here. This is taken straight from the government website. You can received fines in the thousands for running a car without a catalytic converter when it should have one on from factory. Also if you decide to ignore this then just know that you are contributing to poisons in the air that we breathe and contributing to the deaths of people every year as the air becomes more and more polluted.
I don`t know about you but I would rather prefer to be safe in the knowledge that that I am running a proper factory catalytic converter that filters out these poisons, for the sake of losing a few BHP.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modifyi...
First, this thread is over 10 years old. Why did you bump it?
Secondly, sometimes removing the catalytic converter will actually improve emissions.
Let me explain the second bit.
Older diesels, before a DPF was mandatory used a catalytic converter.
There's no lambda sensor on these diesels so no sensors near the cat.
Diesels produce a lot of sooty emissions so cats tend to stop working correctly when covered in soot / particulate matter and after a while the soot will begin to block the cat.
So if you go into an MOT centre, with a non working cat on a diesel it won't impact the emissions test as they only test smoke density and not the type of gasses exiting the exhaust and a cat does nothing in terms of reducing smoke density on a diesel
So although you might have a cat, choking up your exhaust a bit that is doing nothing to help the environment and is making you engine less efficient
However if you remove the non working cat, make the engine more efficient this will result in lower emissions, more power but sadly illegal and won't pass an MOT
EU_Foreigner said:
The first assumption is wrong really. MOT only meassures CO for the emission test, and a CAT does not alter these values so there would be no reason for the car to fail the MOT.
Take notice of this at your peril........removing a cat will contavene construction and use regs, a car fitted with a cat at manufacture will need a cat to pass emissions........failure for no cat is catagorised as dangerous , at the last MOT seminar I attended I believe the figure for the fine was £3000 being bandied around ( could be wrong about the amount though )I believe the law changed a couple of years ago, so the thread resurrection might save a few poeple from severe financial pain:
"Under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulations 61(7) and 61A(3)) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 42) it is an offence to use on a road a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet."
Despite the mention of the 1988 act, this was published in 2018: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modifyi...
If you have modified the car by removing the cat, and yet by some miracle you still meet the emissions standards it was designed to meet (I may be wrong but don't think manufacturers add cats for the hell of it) you are in the clear.
I personally wouldn't risk it on a road car for a few extra bhp that can't be used properly anywhere but a track.
"Under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulations 61(7) and 61A(3)) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 42) it is an offence to use on a road a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet."
Despite the mention of the 1988 act, this was published in 2018: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modifyi...
If you have modified the car by removing the cat, and yet by some miracle you still meet the emissions standards it was designed to meet (I may be wrong but don't think manufacturers add cats for the hell of it) you are in the clear.
I personally wouldn't risk it on a road car for a few extra bhp that can't be used properly anywhere but a track.
Up to 4 years ago my mate was an MOT tester. He took my car into test and brought it back. Any quick fixes were done and no issues occurred. We discussed decatting. He said that as the car was designed to have cats they must be present. If not there then it was an immediate fail. We talked on about clearing out the internal honeycomb. He agreed that the visual would comply but meeting emissions might be a problem. My car has a Rover V8, 4l with Gems management so lambda sensors before and after the cat. It has always been close to lambda limits at MOT test so not worth the hassle for minimal extra bhp. Fitting fewer celled cats to increase through flow would also be a gamble.
A TVr with a V8 engine has precats (one in each manifold) and one large main one where the exhausts meet at the front of the engine. Removal of the precats (destruction of the honeycomb structure inside the manifolds) is a common 'mod.'
The car will still pass if the main one is left in, but removal of the pre-cats improves exhaust gas speed and lowers underbody temperatures a little. Oh, and it sounds better.
The car will still pass if the main one is left in, but removal of the pre-cats improves exhaust gas speed and lowers underbody temperatures a little. Oh, and it sounds better.
Bercilac said:
......If you have modified the car by removing the cat, and yet by some miracle you still meet the emissions standards it was designed to meet (I may be wrong but don't think manufacturers add cats for the hell of it) you are in the clear.........
Removing or modifying the catalytic converter on a car that was manufactured with one fitted as standard is an automatic MOT failure under section 8.2.1.1.(a) of the MOT test, regardless of whether the car still passes emissions or not (From: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-... ) :
Old style de-cats, using straight pieces of pipe to replace the cats, are an easy FAIL for an MOT tester.
Newer de-cats, using empty catalytic converter casings, are harder to spot, and if the emissions test is still passed, then you will most likely get away with it (Note that the MOT failure quotes: "missing, obviously modified, or obviously defective")
However, that doesn't mean you're: "in the clear". To the letter of the Law, your vehicle is still not road legal, as it has an illegal modification to it's emission system. However unlikely, should it be discovered, the insurance could be declared void, leading to a whole new world of pain!
liner33 said:
Since you dont need a cat for an mot I see no reason why its removal should be treated any different than say a blocked air filter or a misfire as both and many other things can effect emissions.
I would suggest if the car failed a roadside emissions test whether it had or didnt have a cat is incidental the important bit is that it failed. It would need a retest as required and may have to have a cat fitted or other adjustments made in order to pass
My Skyline has no cat and sails through mots every year , my Mercedes E class has three cats as standard and i removed the two in the main exhaust system , as its a diesel its not subject to emissions tests anyhow.
My insurance broker is A plan and they are quite used to modified cars
A car originally fitted with a cat at the factory needs a cat to pass the MOT .........the removal of the cat is a major fail whether it passes on emissions or notI would suggest if the car failed a roadside emissions test whether it had or didnt have a cat is incidental the important bit is that it failed. It would need a retest as required and may have to have a cat fitted or other adjustments made in order to pass
My Skyline has no cat and sails through mots every year , my Mercedes E class has three cats as standard and i removed the two in the main exhaust system , as its a diesel its not subject to emissions tests anyhow.
My insurance broker is A plan and they are quite used to modified cars
mike-v2tmf said:
liner33 said:
Since you dont need a cat for an mot I see no reason why its removal should be treated any different than say a blocked air filter or a misfire as both and many other things can effect emissions.
I would suggest if the car failed a roadside emissions test whether it had or didnt have a cat is incidental the important bit is that it failed. It would need a retest as required and may have to have a cat fitted or other adjustments made in order to pass
My Skyline has no cat and sails through mots every year , my Mercedes E class has three cats as standard and i removed the two in the main exhaust system , as its a diesel its not subject to emissions tests anyhow.
My insurance broker is A plan and they are quite used to modified cars
A car originally fitted with a cat at the factory needs a cat to pass the MOT .........the removal of the cat is a major fail whether it passes on emissions or notI would suggest if the car failed a roadside emissions test whether it had or didnt have a cat is incidental the important bit is that it failed. It would need a retest as required and may have to have a cat fitted or other adjustments made in order to pass
My Skyline has no cat and sails through mots every year , my Mercedes E class has three cats as standard and i removed the two in the main exhaust system , as its a diesel its not subject to emissions tests anyhow.
My insurance broker is A plan and they are quite used to modified cars
Classic PH...
'mine passes therefore it means that all pass'
If it passes and it is missing a cat, bully for you and not so good for the tester, it does not mean it is 'legal' to the letter of the law. The chances of actually being subject to further scrutiny are trivial, that said I wouldn't want to have an accident that caused someone to be a KSI statistic.
'mine passes therefore it means that all pass'
If it passes and it is missing a cat, bully for you and not so good for the tester, it does not mean it is 'legal' to the letter of the law. The chances of actually being subject to further scrutiny are trivial, that said I wouldn't want to have an accident that caused someone to be a KSI statistic.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff