Mods undeclared, caught by plod!

[Tony1963]

So it really does happen! Twitter this morning.

[adam.]

Good.

[MC Bodge]

Hardly a discrete car....

Steering wheel mod?

[Poppiecock]

MC Bodge said:

Hardly a discrete car....

Steering wheel mod?

Guessing OEM airbag wheel removed and replaced by non-airbag aftermarket wheel.

[RSVR101]

I would imagine the steering wheel issue revolves around removing an airbag/safety feature?

(Beat me to it!)

[V1nce Fox]

If that's a 318 he's also modified the wheels, rear lights and boot spoiler.

[cossy400]

Owner best get used to buses, a "cancelled" policy on his record is going to make his eyes water come renewal time.

[steveo3002]

would have sailed past unnoticed without the chavy bits

Edited by steveo3002 on Sunday 4th August 10:37

[funkyrobot]

Good.

This vehicle is pretty much the same as a blue example that is around my local area. Always being driven stupidly and has a really, really loud exhaust on (I'm talking silly loud).

[MC Bodge]

Poppiecock said:

Guessing OEM airbag wheel removed and replaced by non-airbag aftermarket wheel.

Of course, thanks.

[blueST]

I’m not condoning this but I don’t understand why it’s a police matter. There is a policy in place on the vehicle but the policy holder isn’t complying with the terms of the policy. If there was an accident, I was under the impression that the insurer would still cover the third party liability, but then pursue the policy holder for their loss. Is it not a contractual matter between the policy holder and the insurance company?

[MC Bodge]

steveo3002 said:

wold have sailed past unnoticed without the chavy bits

No, the officer just detected the sound difference of 2 extra cylinders


A bit like those police interceptors programmes when the traffic plod claim to have devloped a sixth sense over the years to be able to detect anti-socially driven, knackered cars with clouds of weed smoke pouring from the windows driven by young lads.

[Poppiecock]

blueST said:

I’m not condoning this but I don’t understand why it’s a police matter. There is a policy in place on the vehicle but the policy holder isn’t complying with the terms of the policy. If there was an accident, I was under the impression that the insurer would still cover the third party liability, but then pursue the policy holder for their loss. Is it not a contractual matter between the policy holder and the insurance company?

Whilst there may be an arrangement to pay out 3rd party claims, it's still technically driving without insurance - I'm happy for the police to pull people and fine / give points for this.

[Durzel]

blueST said:

I’m not condoning this but I don’t understand why it’s a police matter. There is a policy in place on the vehicle but the policy holder isn’t complying with the terms of the policy. If there was an accident, I was under the impression that the insurer would still cover the third party liability, but then pursue the policy holder for their loss. Is it not a contractual matter between the policy holder and the insurance company?

Because no insurance is a criminal offence. His insurance is void, therefore he has no insurance.

[vonhosen]

blueST said:

I’m not condoning this but I don’t understand why it’s a police matter. There is a policy in place on the vehicle but the policy holder isn’t complying with the terms of the policy. If there was an accident, I was under the impression that the insurer would still cover the third party liability, but then pursue the policy holder for their loss. Is it not a contractual matter between the policy holder and the insurance company?

If they wouldn't have ever covered that vehicle had they known the full facts & you have intentionally withheld them they can void the policy as if it had never existed from day one.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 4th August 11:18

[Black_S3]

blueST said:

I’m not condoning this but I don’t understand why it’s a police matter. There is a policy in place on the vehicle but the policy holder isn’t complying with the terms of the policy. If there was an accident, I was under the impression that the insurer would still cover the third party liability, but then pursue the policy holder for their loss. Is it not a contractual matter between the policy holder and the insurance company?

Could have easily been a stolen 328 running round on plates from a 318. Good job spotting it and taking the time to look into it.

[blueST]

The reason I asked is that there are cases where people have crashed at the Nurburgring, which is expressly excluded in their policy, but the insurer has still covered the third party loss (injury to another party for example). They then sued the policy holder for the costs. Maybe that is not the same type of not complying with the terms.

[vonhosen]

blueST said:

The reason I asked is that there are cases where people have crashed at the Nurburgring, which is expressly excluded in their policy, but the insurer has still covered the third party loss (injury to another party for example). They then sued the policy holder for the costs. Maybe that is not the same type of not complying with the terms.

That would be fairly standard for that type of incident.

[Dr Jekyll]

I remember in the closing days of learner motorcyclists being allowed up to 250cc, there were a lot of Yamaha RD250LCs on L plates whose owners had apparently fitted the twin front discs from the otherwise identical RD350LC.

[Black_S3]

blueST said:

The reason I asked is that there are cases where people have crashed at the Nurburgring, which is expressly excluded in their policy, but the insurer has still covered the third party loss (injury to another party for example). They then sued the policy holder for the costs. Maybe that is not the same type of not complying with the terms.

Yeah that’s a tad different as the car on the policy is the car that’s being driven.... This car is probably close to a q plate to get legit?