Doncaster "Car Meet" - Insurance Implications / Outcomes?

[Gluggy]

Nothing to do with me but saw this news report...

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/sho...

[b]Officers closed the car park last night and checked each car in attendance before it was allowed to leave.

Police said any modifications will be listed and a report will be sent to insurance companies. Modifications not covered will be reported to court and could result in policies being cancelled or increased.[/b]

The bit above is self explanatory but out of curiosity how often does it actually happen? Guess the premium going up is getting off lightly compared to the long term effects of a policy being voided? Also if cancelled would the insurers report this back to the police and does the driver then risk being retrospectively prosecuted for driving without valid insurance?

[andburg]

what we don't know is whether the police followed through, the inspect that many cars would take a lot of resource.

An insurance company would be within their rights to terminate based on undeclared modifications if they wouldn't have allowed them. I don't believe anyone would be charged with driving without insurance historically as they probably can't backdate the cancellation.

What happens if on the spot somebody gets their insurance cancelled though? legally it cant remain there as the car parks are publicly accessible so vehicles need tax and insurance. I guess PC plod would need to have them towed.

Most likely any vehicles they selected to do would be checked over quickly, a list created and the driver let go. The cancellation or premium increase would probably follow if the police followed up and sent the details to the insurer.

Locals "enthusiats" were up in arms about this essentially blaming the police for allowing it to happen and for money grabbing. They were claiming that any other time police used to attend and walk around look at the cars, etc why are they suddenly interested. They forget the reason this blew up is becasue people have forgotten how to be behave, were causing a nuisance and forcing shops to close. From the videos and descriptions of this event they've asked for it, they've took the piss and endangered the public so should be stamped on. Those with legal cars that were driving reasonably would have no issues.

I've been to a few car meets in my time, most recently leeds classic and american nights which go off without a hitch, sure there is the odd fool but the police are there to monitor for idiots and build a rapport with the community.

[NikBartlett]

What would define a "modification" though especially as different insurance companies have different definitions ? This has the distinct ring of a fishing expedition.

[Gareth79]

andburg said:

What happens if on the spot somebody gets their insurance cancelled though? legally it cant remain there as the car parks are publicly accessible so vehicles need tax and insurance. I guess PC plod would need to have them towed.

Most likely any vehicles they selected to do would be checked over quickly, a list created and the driver let go. The cancellation or premium increase would probably follow if the police followed up and sent the details to the insurer.

It said in the report "Officers closed the car park last night and checked each car in attendance before it was allowed to leave. Police said any modifications will be listed and a report will be sent to insurance companies. Modifications not covered will be reported to court and could result in policies being cancelled or increased."

It will probably be a fair bit of paperwork between police and the insurers, but they may decide it's worth the effort to send out a message.

NikBartlett said:

What would define a "modification" though especially as different insurance companies have different definitions ? This has the distinct ring of a fishing expedition.

They'll just send a list of the most obvious stuff, take photos, and let the insurer figure it out. eg. "spoiler, aftermarket wheels with stretched tyres, exhaust is obviously not original, vehicle lower than standard"

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Gluggy said:

The bit above is self explanatory but out of curiosity how often does it actually happen?

Not often enough.

[Gecko1978]

how would the "see" a remap, or how would they know you exhaust was aftermarket (assuming it looked same). Also when you buy a used car if it has been modded how do u tell the insurance company. When we sold the impreza I did not tell the buyer it had a remap for example.

[Ian Geary]

I think the police going for visible mods would be enough... anyone who has a hidden mod will obviously be lucky that night.


There's a bit of jeapordy I guess when buying a car that's had mods done to it which you weren't told about.

I suspect this is the exception rather than the norm, but I'm not sure an insurance company would believe it.

A court might rule there is "reasonable doubt", but a limited company who is basically looking to maximise profits and offload risks would be expected to show you the door with that excuse... after all, they offer insurance based on the facts presented. If those facts are wrong, they can change their mind, as per the contract both parties will have signed.

(Not particularly sympathetic to drivers who mod cars them try to Welsh out of insurance obligations)

[Oceanrower]

Ian Geary said:

(Not particularly sympathetic to drivers who mod cars them try to Welsh out of insurance obligations)

RACIST!!!!!!!!!

[mike74]

Ian Geary said:

I think the police going for visible mods would be enough... anyone who has a hidden mod will obviously be lucky that night.

)

So somebody who's got a bit of pointless plastic tat stuck to their car which in no way increases the performance will feel the full weight of the law come down on them... meanwhile someone else who has significantly increased the bhp of their car with a remap or a big turbo without other supporting mods to handle the extra power and taking it well outside of the manufacturers specifications gets off free.

[V8 Bob]

Read another report where it was stated by several people that the crash was unrelated to the meet...a woman driver drove through a red light and collided with another vehicle. A bit of press wanting to embellish a report?

Bit similar to the off-road Land Rover seized for using a bye way this turned out to be uninsured and unlicensed but again no mention of the true reason for seizure.

[slipknotted]

Yeah this is just irresponsible and an abuse of power by the police, how the fk is an average bobby or even a car enthusiast traffic cop going to know how loud or low a Honda Prelude is stock??

Obviously if there's a 1.6 astra running at 100db then he's an idiot and asking for it and it's well within the realms of possibility that there's a few cars that are uninsured and/or in a dangerous condition, but checking every car?? It also goes without saying anyone driving like a tt in a populated carpark deserves to have the book thrown at them.

What gets me is the article does make it sound like every car was checked, surely it's pretty discriminatory to be forced to show your documents and have your car inspected just because you were at an event or in a certain carpark. Just a joke, I'd be pretty pissed if plod told my insurance I had an exhaust installed just because he doesn't know how loud my car was stock, etc. Police aren't MOT testers

[Aretnap]

Ian Geary said:

There's a bit of jeapordy I guess when buying a car that's had mods done to it which you weren't told about.

I suspect this is the exception rather than the norm, but I'm not sure an insurance company would believe it.

A court might rule there is "reasonable doubt", but a limited company who is basically looking to maximise profits and offload risks would be expected to show you the door with that excuse... after all, they offer insurance based on the facts presented. If those facts are wrong, they can change their mind, as per the contract both parties will have signed.

The notion that insurance companies (or companies that deal with consumers, generally) can do whatever they damn well like if the contract says that they can went out at roughly the same time as the dinosaurs.

In the case of facts presented, the law is clear that an insurance company can only cancel the policy if the customer failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the answers they gave to the questions were accurate. (Even if the customer did not take reasonable care to answer the questions correctly, the insurer's ability to cancel the contract is constrained unless they can prove that the customer provided false information deliberately or recklessly, as opposed to carelessly).

So if the customer does all he reasonably can to answer the questions accurately, but the answers turn out to be inaccurate anyway, it's the insurance company's problem, not his problem.

Unknowingly buying a modified car is a classic example of a situation where a customer can take reasonable care, but still end up providing false information. The Financial Ombudsman has been consistent through the years that a consumer who unknowingly buys a modified car is not to be penalised by his insurer if he doesn't declare the modifications. A brief Google brings up this example of a case from 2010 ( Page 7); things have only moved further in the consumer's favour since then.

Which is as it should be really. Insurance companies are big boys, dealing with risk is what they do for a living, and the risk that they might end up insuring a few more modified cars than they wanted to is a risk that they can factor into their premiums generally. Better than the risk landing on individual consumers who have done nothing wrong.

NB This all applies only if the modifications are the sort of thing that would not have been obvious to the average customer who doesn't necessarily know a lot about cars. If you bought a car with a huge exhaust and spoiler, skirting 2 millimetres off the ground and blue LEDs underneath it, the Financial Ombudsman would probably decide that on the balance of probabilities of course you damn well knew that it had been modified.

[Gareth79]

slipknotted said:

What gets me is the article does make it sound like every car was checked, surely it's pretty discriminatory to be forced to show your documents and have your car inspected just because you were at an event or in a certain carpark.

The police are entitled to ask for your licence/insurance at any time. It doesn't say that the vehicles were 'inspected' there, just that modifications were noted down. Many (most?) traffic officers are authorised to inspect a vehicle to ensure it complies with C&U regs.

[Zoobeef]

I once got stopped by Donny police in the Noble. After taking my name I overheard their hushed discussion as to wether it came out the factory looking as it does.
I can only imagine the clueless list of mods they proudly send to insurance companies.

[105.4]

NikBartlett said:

What would define a "modification" though especially as different insurance companies have different definitions ? This has the distinct ring of a fishing expedition.

I’ve no idea.

Having been stung for this sort of thing in my youth, I’ve always declared all known mods, with a further caveat that besides those mods listed, the vehicle is, to my knowledge, completely as standard.

To further elaborate, I once asked an insurance chap if, for example, you didn’t have Ford FoMoCo brake discs on your Fiesta, but the discs were to OEM spec, would that be a ‘mod’ and I was told that if replacement parts were to OEM spec, then they were not a mod. Maybe different insurance companies have different guidelines though?

[aka_kerrly]

La Liga said:

slipknotted said:

What gets me is the article does make it sound like every car was checked, surely it's pretty discriminatory to be forced to show your documents and have your car inspected just because you were at an event or in a certain carpark. Just a joke, I'd be pretty pissed if plod told my insurance I had an exhaust installed just because he doesn't know how loud my car was stock, etc. Police aren't MOT testers

Why are you focused on the noise a car emits? Where does the article say that’s was noted / will be reported?

You don’t need to be an MOT tester to take a picture of some obviously modded Barry-mobile and pass it on.

I wonder if Slipknotted has been pulled over by an over enthusiastic officer who knows very little about cars. I certainly have

I don't believe it is unreasonable for police officers serving in the traffic division to be expected to have a higher level of car knowledge akin to an MOT inspector in order to perform their role correctly.

What I do find a bit frustrating is that as always it's a small minority of prats that spoil the event for everyone else which has then also given officers extra determination & reason to issue fines/endorsements to modified car owners. Meanwhile every day of the week hundreds of thousands of generic standard cars in shameful condition without tax/mot/insurance are driven around unhindered.


That said if the police issued a £1k fine to EVERYONE with a pop & bang map I'd give them a round of applause !!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mike74 said:

So somebody who's got a bit of pointless plastic tat stuck to their car which in no way increases the performance will feel the full weight of the law come down on them... meanwhile someone else who has significantly increased the bhp of their car with a remap or a big turbo without other supporting mods to handle the extra power and taking it well outside of the manufacturers specifications gets off free.

So someone who commits insurance fraud gets caught, whilst someone else who commits worse insurance fraud gets off. Isn't that life? I've gone way over the speed limit before and not been caught, whilst others have been caught doing far less over the limit.

[Psycho Warren]

Dont drive like a bellend and drive legally all mods declared and you have nothing to worry about.

too simplistic a view? Doubt it.

The car "scene" brings this police reaction on itself due to consistent antisocial behaviour and law breaking.

[spikyone]

mike74 said:

Ian Geary said:

I think the police going for visible mods would be enough... anyone who has a hidden mod will obviously be lucky that night.

So somebody who's got a bit of pointless plastic tat stuck to their car which in no way increases the performance will feel the full weight of the law come down on them... meanwhile someone else who has significantly increased the bhp of their car with a remap or a big turbo without other supporting mods to handle the extra power and taking it well outside of the manufacturers specifications gets off free.

Let's be realistic. If you've fitted a big turbo to your car and you're at a car meet on a retail park, it's pretty likely that you've got a fair few other modifications that are more visible. You haven't gone there to show off the size of your snail. I'd imagine very few of the people at a meet like that would have a significant engine mod and nothing else noticeable.

I don't have a problem with plod stopping people with modified cars to check they're properly insured. But then all of my modifications are declared. What I don't understand, in the 21st century, is why the drivers of these cars weren't able to just show the officers a digital copy of their insurance certificate and carry on with their day, which would be my response. If police had to forward details to the insurers, it might suggest a few of those present hadn't declared their modifications.

[Colonel Cupcake]

Psycho Warren said:

Dont drive like a bellend and drive legally all mods declared and you have nothing to worry about.

too simplistic a view? Doubt it.

The car "scene" brings this police reaction on itself due to consistent antisocial behaviour and law breaking.

Compared with the traveller 'scene' and the boys in blue are nowhere to be seen.