Insurance voided due to car having PPF! HELP PLEASE!
Discussion
Going forward, my car has some PPF on it, just the obvious bits likes chin spoiler and wheelarches. So if AXA and presumably the rest of the industry want to firm up on their 'PPF is notifiable' rule, what percentage of PPF coverage is needed before it becomes notifiable, and how does Joe Carowner calculate it...?
Great result OP - really pleased for you!
mmm-five said:
Just be aware, that whilst Admiral won't charge extra for PPF, they will also refuse to pay for it to be replaced after an accident.
This wasn't my experience - I hadn't declared it, and they did pay for it to be replaced - at Topaz too, no less...Well done,
Although PPF is obviously a wrap that just happens to be transparent, I could easily conceive of scenarios where people don't consider it to be a modification in the formal context of insurance, if indeed they are even aware that it has been installed (decent PPF can be all but invisible). Fortunately the ombudsman agreed.
Although PPF is obviously a wrap that just happens to be transparent, I could easily conceive of scenarios where people don't consider it to be a modification in the formal context of insurance, if indeed they are even aware that it has been installed (decent PPF can be all but invisible). Fortunately the ombudsman agreed.
king awful company - ONE YEAR to sort this out. bDurzel said:
Although PPF is obviously a wrap that just happens to be transparent, I could easily conceive of scenarios where people don't consider it to be a modification in the formal context of insurance
Well, to me a 'wrap' is something you apply to change the colour of a car, a la Mr Yiannis and his tasteful customers of surprising wealth. By contrast 'PPF' is small areas of protective film to prevent stone chips and preserve the bodywork.I know some people have their car covered in PPF but it's still for protection rather than cosmetic effect.
Durzel said:
Although PPF is obviously a wrap that just happens to be transparent, I could easily conceive of scenarios where people don't consider it to be a modification in the formal context of insurance, if indeed they are even aware that it has been installed (decent PPF can be all but invisible). Fortunately the ombudsman agreed.
Every insurer is different about what they consider a modification. If AX had specifically asked about PPF and OP said "nope", the ending would have been very different. They'd still have needed to prove that they would have refused cover if the PPF had been declared. If they'd just had an increased premium for PPF they would not be able to void the insurance entirely - just a lower pro-rata payout, AIUI.
Simpo Two said:
Durzel said:
Although PPF is obviously a wrap that just happens to be transparent, I could easily conceive of scenarios where people don't consider it to be a modification in the formal context of insurance
Well, to me a 'wrap' is something you apply to change the colour of a car, a la Mr Yiannis and his tasteful customers of surprising wealth. By contrast 'PPF' is small areas of protective film to prevent stone chips and preserve the bodywork.I know some people have their car covered in PPF but it's still for protection rather than cosmetic effect.
That being said - as mentioned - I would expect most people not to consider "paint protection film" as a modification in the traditional sense of the word, and the ombudsman agrees.
Durzel said:
Simpo Two said:
Durzel said:
Although PPF is obviously a wrap that just happens to be transparent, I could easily conceive of scenarios where people don't consider it to be a modification in the formal context of insurance
Well, to me a 'wrap' is something you apply to change the colour of a car, a la Mr Yiannis and his tasteful customers of surprising wealth. By contrast 'PPF' is small areas of protective film to prevent stone chips and preserve the bodywork.I know some people have their car covered in PPF but it's still for protection rather than cosmetic effect.
That being said - as mentioned - I would expect most people not to consider "paint protection film" as a modification in the traditional sense of the word, and the ombudsman agrees.
MrBnz said:
Red9zero said:
That says wrap. How much of the car has ppf ?
I was only aware of the FULL car having PPF when the involve was provided as i originally thought it was the front only. They calcifying it as a wrap of the car as that the only category they can put it under?
Considering the fact that PPF fitting can run in three figures very quickly, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to hear that the insurance industry as a whole have noted this outcome with interest.
[edit] added OPs quote from earlier in thread.
Edited by Hol on Friday 24th November 09:40
Hol said:
Considering the fact that PPF fitting can run in three figures very quickly, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to hear that the insurance industry as a whole have noted this outcome with interest.
An easy fix would be for them to amend the list of modifications such as 'A modification is any change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork, PPF and any performance enhancement.'That brings us back to 'how much PPF'? For example, do you have to declare the four pieces 1" wide that protect your wheelarches?
Or perhaps any repairs could simply be done without PPF and the owner would have to redo it at his own cost.
Simpo Two said:
An easy fix would be for them to amend the list of modifications such as 'A modification is any change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork, PPF and any performance enhancement.'
That brings us back to 'how much PPF'? For example, do you have to declare the four pieces 1" wide that protect your wheelarches?
Or perhaps any repairs could simply be done without PPF and the owner would have to redo it at his own cost.
It’s becoming more mainstream, so I would personally expect them to list under the replacement exclusions.That brings us back to 'how much PPF'? For example, do you have to declare the four pieces 1" wide that protect your wheelarches?
Or perhaps any repairs could simply be done without PPF and the owner would have to redo it at his own cost.
It wouldn’t affect premiums and the owner could just have it reapplied post bodywork repair.
Those that don’t have it, wouldn’t even realise it was a thing..
I had similar (but not the same) years ago, with Japanese spec lights on a car.
Unlike normal aftermarket parts, they were manufacturer fit and just looked better to me, plus they passed every mot as their only difference was white indicator lenses and orange indicator bulbs.
When someone backed a van into the car, their insurance co would only replace it with a brand new UK specification light with an amber lens on that side.
Sometimes their logic is a bit bonkers.
Hol said:
I had similar (but not the same) years ago, with Japanese spec lights on a car.
Unlike normal aftermarket parts, they were manufacturer fit and just looked better to me, plus they passed every mot as their only difference was white indicator lenses and orange indicator bulbs.
But was it a UK-spec car, delivered with those Japanese-spec lights fitted as standard, or did you retrofit them?Unlike normal aftermarket parts, they were manufacturer fit and just looked better to me, plus they passed every mot as their only difference was white indicator lenses and orange indicator bulbs.
Obviously the latter would be a mod, the other would not.
e.g. my car could be supplied with 315, 330, 340, or 370mm brakes as UK-spec, depending what option pack you chose. If I bought the base-spec 315mm model and retro-fitted the 370mm kit would you consider that a 'manufacturer-fitted' part too, or a mod?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff