DPF removal and Insurance

[Osinjak]

There's a bit of a debate going on over in BMWLand about removing DPFs and invalidating your insurance. According to the AA's website, if you remove your DPF you should tell your insurance company who will likely cancel your insurance as the car has been illegally modified.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-env...

However, one chap here is arguing that an insurance company is highly unlikely to discover it but another chap disagrees.

http://www.bmwland.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&...

What's the general feeling from the insurance types on here?

Some caveats:

1. I'm neither of those blokes on BMWLand.
2. I have a BMW.
3. But I have no intention of removing my DPF.

[Osinjak]

Magic919 said:

AA's website doesn't say that. It says -

"You must notify your insurer if the vehicle is modified but such a modification could in turn invalidate any insurance cover because it makes the vehicle illegal for road use."

Note they use the word 'could'. I wouldn't rely on their website for advice about anything.

I don't have a dog in this particular fight.

Which is why I said 'likely' as opposed to 'will' but like you, I have no particular dog in this fight either, just idle curiosity.

[Osinjak]

kiethton said:

On the flip side its a general consumable. Do you notify them if you switch the factory conti's to pirelli/wanli or the standard brake pads to pagids from ECP?

I wouldn't have thought so given that changing your pads/tyres is not potentially illegal which seems to be the crux of the problem with DPFs and emissions regulations. Nor does changing them potentially fail your MoT. Not really a sensible comparison to be honest.

[Osinjak]

Magic919 said:

People have be de-catting cars for years. No big dramas have unfolded. Can't see DPF removal being so different.

But it is different because as of Feb 2014 it's supposedly 'illegal.'

[Osinjak]

Magic919 said:

Is 'illegal' in quotes any different to being illegal? What is the new law that is enacted from that date regarding DPFs?

Yes it is, it indicates that I'm not entirely sure about it hence the apostrophes. For the last part of your question, the info is in the AA link above.

[Osinjak]

kiethton said:

Osinjak said:

But it is different because as of Feb 2014 it's supposedly 'illegal.'

Surely if the car passes the MOT with the core knocked out/skin place AND passes the emissions test it is legal.

You would think so but really my question is about how interested insurance companies would be in DPF removal and whether they'd go looking for it in the event of a claim, etc.

[Osinjak]

Magic919 said:

Osinjak said:

Magic919 said:

Is 'illegal' in quotes any different to being illegal? What is the new law that is enacted from that date regarding DPFs?

Yes it is, it indicates that I'm not entirely sure about it hence the apostrophes. For the last part of your question, the info is in the AA link above.

I can't see any new law referenced on that page. Can you see one?

No, hence the discussion.

[Osinjak]

Well I'm sure there are plenty of other threads you could contribute to if you don't feel you can contribute to this one.

[Osinjak]

That's how I understood it but how interested would an insurance company be? Is it something they would look for in the event of a total loss claim for example?

[Osinjak]

Retroman said:

As far as i know, your insurance would still be valid as long as the modification didn't contribute to the accident.
But you would still be liable to make any payments for the extra rise in premium from when then undeclared mod was fitted.

I'm with a broker who specialises in performance vehicles. I've got a VAG 1.9 TDi with a 2.5" turbo back exhaust fitted. The cat was removed and a "ghost cat" was put in place instead (cat heatshields welded over the top of the pipe)
When i delcared it to my insurance, i told them a full performance exhaust system was fitted and all was sorted.

I think it's the wording on the AA's website that makes it ambiguous, it suggests that removing the DPF will mean the car will fail the emissions regulations which means the car will be illegal and that it may invalidate the insurance. So even if the removal of the DPF didn't cause an accident, you still may not be insured because of the apparently illegal modification. All this is new since Feb 2014. How likely is it that an insurance company would go rooting around your DPF in the event of a claim?

[Osinjak]

Retroman said:

DPF removal has always been illegal IIRC, it's just recently it's became an MOT failure as well to bring the MOT in line with current regulations regarding emissions legality.
I would take anything like this on the AA website with a pinch of salt, as they are often wrong or misguided with their advise.

Aye, it all seems a bit woolly really.

[Osinjak]

The conversation on BMWLand centres on whether an insurance company assessor would dig around the DPF in the event of a large claim, I think it's unlikely but given that DPF removal supposed to be illegal since Feb 14 I just wondered how plausible that would actually be.

[Osinjak]

Apols, meant to say the test but regardless, I didn't know it had always been illegal.