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

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

Author
Discussion

Pixelpeep7r

Original Poster:

8,600 posts

142 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all


Northumbria police last night seized a Vauxhall Corsa that was 'registered and insured as a 1.4' but it was found to have a 2.0 turbo charged engine along with various other undisclosed modifications.

Finally!!

great read.

Link > http://www.northumbria.police.uk/news_and_events/n...

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
Not convinced the insurance fraud charge will stick unfortunately. It would be better to charge him with not having insurance following discussions with his insurer about the modifications.

Nezquick

1,461 posts

126 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
My guess is that he'll receive a slap on the wrists, a minimal fine and be sent on his way but I hope I'm wrong.

They really should thrown the book at these people.

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!

Pixelpeep7r

Original Poster:

8,600 posts

142 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Not convinced the insurance fraud charge will stick unfortunately. It would be better to charge him with not having insurance following discussions with his insurer about the modifications.
Doesn't it get logged on that database that you've tried to defraud the insurance company though?

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
Pixelpeep7r said:
Doesn't it get logged on that database that you've tried to defraud the insurance company though?
What database? There isn't a central one as such as there would be DPA issues of length of time we could hold the info and being able to identify the individual too easily.

He's bought insurance through deliberate omission, which is a civil matter. Had he tried to claim for a dodgy accident then he'd be nailed on for fraud. Far easier to get his insurer to cancel the policy ab initio, assuming they wouldn't have taken the risk on at any price, and then charge him with no insurance.

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

170 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Not convinced the insurance fraud charge will stick unfortunately. It would be better to charge him with not having insurance following discussions with his insurer about the modifications.
Which is probably why it is best that you steer clear of commenting on legal matters.

PorkInsider

5,888 posts

141 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
I assumed that they would be looking at fraud as the insurance co' would still be liable for claims by 3rd parties if Corsa boy had an accident?

I know they could simply refuse the driver's own claim but I thought that they couldn't refuse that of a 3rd party if Corsa boy was at fault, unless I'm wrong, which has been known...

Has Corsa boy not therefore acted fraudulently in conning the insurance co' into providing the 3rd party cover they would have to honour and that would have otherwise been refused?

Pixelpeep7r

Original Poster:

8,600 posts

142 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
obtaining goods or services by deception or whatever the charge is?


like an adult using a child fare on the train ?

Roo

11,503 posts

207 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
Article doesn't state that the person charged with insurance fraud is the same one who had their car seized.

PorkInsider

5,888 posts

141 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
Roo said:
Article doesn't state that the person charged with insurance fraud is the same one who had their car seized.
Article does. Unless I'm mistaken?

Last sentence of the last paragraph talking about the Corsa "The driver has been reported for road traffic and fraud offences and will be summonsed to court in due course."

Vaud

50,450 posts

155 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
Could you upload a bigger picture? That one was a bit tiny? wink

Roo

11,503 posts

207 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
Apologies. I'd missed the bit at the bottom and was going from earlier in the article which read as if it could've been another person.

Three people were also referred for driver awareness courses and one car was seized for having undisclosed performance modifications on his car.

One driver was reported for insurance fraud, another was reported for driving at excess speed and a man was arrested and charged with driving over the limit

Pixelpeep7r

Original Poster:

8,600 posts

142 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
Vaud said:
Could you upload a bigger picture? That one was a bit tiny? wink
i didn't upload any picture, i just hot linked their one. smile

anonymous-user

54 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
He's bought insurance through deliberate omission, which is a civil matter. Had he tried to claim for a dodgy accident then he'd be nailed on for fraud. Far easier to get his insurer to cancel the policy ab initio, assuming they wouldn't have taken the risk on at any price, and then charge him with no insurance.
He's made a false representation through an omission, exposing the insurer to a loss.

Whether or not they want to complain is another matter, but the criminal offence is made out.





photosnob

1,339 posts

118 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
I hope my car is perfectly standard then... I brought it secondhand so have no idea if anyone has played with it. Now clearly I know what engine is has in - so I'm no claiming you wouldn't know the difference between a 1.4 and a 2.0 turbo... But my partner would have no idea if a car has standard wheels or had been lowered. If she got a car with a sony stereo she'd think it came from the factory like that.

Also you have to ask the question about whether if you have non runflats it's a modification if the police are going to be taking your car... Far too ambiguous for me. Some will say that you should always ring the insurer and ask - well do you want me to call them if I change my wiper blades at halfords? If I get a third party alternator to replace the broken OEM one, is that a modification? What about if I put generic brake pads on??

Sounds like I'm being pedantic - but if they are taking cars for modifications they should be very very clear what is a modification, and also what you are expected to know.

paintman

7,687 posts

190 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
Pixelpeep7r said:
obtaining goods or services by deception or whatever the charge is?
Repealed & replaced by the Fraud Act 2006:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-fra...
Fraud Act 2006:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/sectio...
Under that Act consider Section 2 (False representation) or 3 (Failing to disclose information)

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
Which is probably why it is best that you steer clear of commenting on legal matters.
Are you ever going to get over your obsession with me? It is quite tedious.

Pixelpeep7r

Original Poster:

8,600 posts

142 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
paintman said:
Pixelpeep7r said:
obtaining goods or services by deception or whatever the charge is?
Repealed & replaced by the Fraud Act 2006:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-fra...
Fraud Act 2006:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/sectio...
Under that Act consider Section 2 (False representation) or 3 (Failing to disclose information)
Superb, thank you.

smile

Jayho

2,014 posts

170 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
I saw this posted on social media last night. Some of the comments on there were rather infuriating, a lot of people defending this "Car enthusiast". There were comments upon how it was the insurance companies fault for holding a monopoly and charging extortionate prices, and the fact that he was not a "real criminal".

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.

AndrewEH1

4,917 posts

153 months

Friday 13th March 2015
quotequote all
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!