Insurance voided due to car having PPF! HELP PLEASE!

[Hol]

mmm-five said:

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?

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?

Uk supplied car and I fitted them.

It’s not actually my personal view that is in question in the context of the story. I would ideally have liked an exact replacement.

The ins co in this case would only fit a UK cluster with an amber indicator lense.

Before the car was returned, I had ordered a second hand JDM cluster for fitment at a cheaper price than they paid the Subaru dealer..



This is a UK cluster for comparison.

[ashleyman]

mmm-five said:

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?

Yes.

[bad company]

This looks like a very similar case where the Ombudsman found in favour of AXA. I tried uploading the finding but I’m on a ship at sea with weak WiFi.


https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...

[wyson]

First great result OP.

I think the second case, where AXA won, hinges on definitions. In the second case the person complaining provided this definition to the ombudsman:

"Any modification which change the maker’s standard specification including cosmetic changes or manufacturer’s options.”

Which the ombudsman decided could reasonably include PPF.


In the OPs case, he got the policy through a price comparison website where the explanation of a mod was:

“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 and any performance enhancement."

The ombudsman decided in the eyes of a consumer, you could reasonably think PPF isn't applicable to this definition.

If it said "any cosmetic enhancement" and / or "cosmetic changes" I reckon the OP wouldn't have won.

From the insurance companies perspective, considering PPF's cost hundred / thousands, I can see why they would want to know about it.

Edited by wyson on Saturday 25th November 12:00

[Durzel]

It’s interesting because I wouldn’t call PPF a cosmetic modification either. It is effectively invisible, so arguably offers no cosmetic benefit except in the context that it might prevent stone chips that would otherwise need to be touched up.

Not something I’d personally want to have to test though. I prefer my insurance to be peace of mind rather than something I gave up anticipate getting into an argument over semantics over.

[The_Nugget]

Hol said:

mmm-five said:

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?

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?

Uk supplied car and I fitted them.

It’s not actually my personal view that is in question in the context of the story. I would ideally have liked an exact replacement.

The ins co in this case would only fit a UK cluster with an amber indicator lense.

Before the car was returned, I had ordered a second hand JDM cluster for fitment at a cheaper price than they paid the Subaru dealer..



This is a UK cluster for comparison.

I had similar when in a no-fault accident. My car had aftermarket alloys. One front alloy was damaged. They wouldn’t provide a replacement but instead would give me the cash equivalent for an OEM alloy. Happy days. I managed to get 2 new front alloys for less than one OEM one and ended up with better condition wheels than when I started.

[bad company]

wyson said:

First great result OP.

I think the second case, where AXA won, hinges on definitions. In the second case the person complaining provided this definition to he ombudsman:

"Any modification which change the maker’s standard specification including cosmetic changes or manufacturer’s options.”

Which the ombudsman decided could reasonably include PPF.]

The worrying part of that is the inclusion of ‘manufacturers options’. I’ve just specked a new BMW with several options.

I’ll also get a dash cam & immobiliser fitted.

[bosshog]

I just called my insurer LV= and they class PPF as a modification, so I declared it and it’s added £20 to my premium.

Reason they gave as it will cost more to repair.

[Roman Moroni]

bosshog said:

I just called my insurer LV= and they class PPF as a modification, so I declared it and it’s added £20 to my premium.

Reason they gave as it will cost more to repair.

FWIW, I spoke to Esure after I read this thread. They too consider PPF a modification. The car is in long term storage and won't be seeing light of day until March at the earliest when I'll be getting PPF fitted. I'm no longer with Esure; I have now gone through a Broker who states none of the insurance companies they use consider PPF a mod.

Clearly, horses for courses.

[Gareth79]

I assume that PPF ages and might often need to be reapplied on the whole vehicle after a repair because a new piece will stand out due to being a different finish/sheen/colour?

[Simpo Two]

bad company said:

wyson said:

First great result OP.

I think the second case, where AXA won, hinges on definitions. In the second case the person complaining provided this definition to he ombudsman:

"Any modification which change the maker’s standard specification including cosmetic changes or manufacturer’s options.”

Which the ombudsman decided could reasonably include PPF.]

The worrying part of that is the inclusion of ‘manufacturers options’. I’ve just specked a new BMW with several options.

That can ramify indefinitely. My car has cruise control which I think was an option - do I need to declare it? And how would l reasonably know what was an option on a car made in 2007 that I bought in 2021?

[ingenieur]

I think what it is supposed to mean is that most of the cars in this thread wouldn't be covered: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

...unless the modifications were declared and insurance agreed thereafter.




Instead what they've done is wilfully misinterpreted the rules to try and avoid a claim.

Anybody think that deserves a higher penalty than just making good for the customer? Should they have been fined as well perhaps?

[Blue62]

A victory for common sense, well done OP. The insurer concerned and any associated company has been on my avoid list for years, they are among the very worst. Some years ago we had to cancel a holiday (my FiL died suddenly), our travel insurance was through Amex with Axa as the insurer. They refused the claim because we hadn’t paid for the villa using our Amex card (the rental company wouldn’t accept Amex), they stuck to the small print and took no account of the circumstances.

[Foss62]

Simpo Two said:

bad company said:

wyson said:

First great result OP.

I think the second case, where AXA won, hinges on definitions. In the second case the person complaining provided this definition to he ombudsman:

"Any modification which change the maker’s standard specification including cosmetic changes or manufacturer’s options.”

Which the ombudsman decided could reasonably include PPF.]

The worrying part of that is the inclusion of ‘manufacturers options’. I’ve just specked a new BMW with several options.

That can ramify indefinitely. My car has cruise control which I think was an option - do I need to declare it? And how would l reasonably know what was an option on a car made in 2007 that I bought in 2021?

It becomes more than daft when they start getting into manufacturers (non performance) options and not only for the very good reason you point out. Fact is that most of the options these days exist on every model and are just activated electronically (along sometimes with a switch costing a tenner) when specified or on different trim levels.
As with the OP’s paint protection this just seems a cynical scam to catch people out. The only actual relevance to insurance payouts is in making sure any replacement (or value) is not specced higher than the original - something that doesn’t need establishing until a claim is made.

[Simpo Two]

Foss62 said:

It becomes more than daft when they start getting into manufacturers (non performance) options and not only for the very good reason you point out. Fact is that most of the options these days exist on every model and are just activated electronically (along sometimes with a switch costing a tenner) when specified or on different trim levels.
As with the OP’s paint protection this just seems a cynical scam to catch people out. The only actual relevance to insurance payouts is in making sure any replacement (or value) is not specced higher than the original - something that doesn’t need establishing until a claim is made.

Yep. My view is that anything factory fitted should be covered. As for insurance companies, perhaps the best claim they could make in their advertising blurb is not happy scenes of mixed-race families but the percentage of claims they pay out. If I ran an insurance company, I would make it very clear what was allowed and what wasn't. Perhaps if AXA tried that, rather than relying on 'such as', they would spend less management time bickering over needless disputes and have happier customers. If PPF is excluded, then for heaven's sake say so and everybody knows where they stand.

[ingenieur]

Simpo Two said:

Foss62 said:

It becomes more than daft when they start getting into manufacturers (non performance) options and not only for the very good reason you point out. Fact is that most of the options these days exist on every model and are just activated electronically (along sometimes with a switch costing a tenner) when specified or on different trim levels.
As with the OP’s paint protection this just seems a cynical scam to catch people out. The only actual relevance to insurance payouts is in making sure any replacement (or value) is not specced higher than the original - something that doesn’t need establishing until a claim is made.

Yep. My view is that anything factory fitted should be covered. As for insurance companies, perhaps the best claim they could make in their advertising blurb is not happy scenes of mixed-race families but the percentage of claims they pay out. If I ran an insurance company, I would make it very clear what was allowed and what wasn't. Perhaps if AXA tried that, rather than relying on 'such as', they would spend less management time bickering over needless disputes and have happier customers. If PPF is excluded, then for heaven's sake say so and everybody knows where they stand.

I think they do put pretty much everything in the small print. If you read the small print on a lot of financial products (and some other products) you will usually find the main reason you want the product is excluded from the product offering despite the marketing of the product promoting that sort of use. There is vast dishonesty in the area of financial products. I would say at least half of all financial products sold aren't fit for purpose and the customers are unaware.

[Foss62]

ingenieur said:

Simpo Two said:

Foss62 said:

It becomes more than daft when they start getting into manufacturers (non performance) options and not only for the very good reason you point out. Fact is that most of the options these days exist on every model and are just activated electronically (along sometimes with a switch costing a tenner) when specified or on different trim levels.
As with the OP’s paint protection this just seems a cynical scam to catch people out. The only actual relevance to insurance payouts is in making sure any replacement (or value) is not specced higher than the original - something that doesn’t need establishing until a claim is made.

Yep. My view is that anything factory fitted should be covered. As for insurance companies, perhaps the best claim they could make in their advertising blurb is not happy scenes of mixed-race families but the percentage of claims they pay out. If I ran an insurance company, I would make it very clear what was allowed and what wasn't. Perhaps if AXA tried that, rather than relying on 'such as', they would spend less management time bickering over needless disputes and have happier customers. If PPF is excluded, then for heaven's sake say so and everybody knows where they stand.

I think they do put pretty much everything in the small print. If you read the small print on a lot of financial products (and some other products) you will usually find the main reason you want the product is excluded from the product offering despite the marketing of the product promoting that sort of use. There is vast dishonesty in the area of financial products. I would say at least half of all financial products sold aren't fit for purpose and the customers are unaware.

One of the reasons I’m so wary of insurers is that I could quite easily have fallen for one of the ‘scams’. I let my household insurance rollover a few years ago, having had a short renewal e mail telling me that effectively nothing had changed with the policy.
A couple of weeks later, all the new documents arrived and I idly looked through them. Fortunately I was awake enough to see a new piece of small print in the actual policy document giving me 28 days to get a burglar alarm professionally fitted along with a service contract - something that would actually have cost more than the annual policy!
I phoned the company up in a rage, and they eventually agreed to insure me for the rest of the year without the new clause and send me a replacement policy document.
Searches online revealed that others had fallen for this and found themselves un-insured after making claims.
Just to make it clear, I’ve no problem with insurers changing their requirements, but to not mention a change as huge as this with the renewal offer is disgraceful and can only be a claim avoidance strategy.

[ingenieur]

Foss62 said:

ingenieur said:

Simpo Two said:

Foss62 said:

It becomes more than daft when they start getting into manufacturers (non performance) options and not only for the very good reason you point out. Fact is that most of the options these days exist on every model and are just activated electronically (along sometimes with a switch costing a tenner) when specified or on different trim levels.
As with the OP’s paint protection this just seems a cynical scam to catch people out. The only actual relevance to insurance payouts is in making sure any replacement (or value) is not specced higher than the original - something that doesn’t need establishing until a claim is made.

Yep. My view is that anything factory fitted should be covered. As for insurance companies, perhaps the best claim they could make in their advertising blurb is not happy scenes of mixed-race families but the percentage of claims they pay out. If I ran an insurance company, I would make it very clear what was allowed and what wasn't. Perhaps if AXA tried that, rather than relying on 'such as', they would spend less management time bickering over needless disputes and have happier customers. If PPF is excluded, then for heaven's sake say so and everybody knows where they stand.

I think they do put pretty much everything in the small print. If you read the small print on a lot of financial products (and some other products) you will usually find the main reason you want the product is excluded from the product offering despite the marketing of the product promoting that sort of use. There is vast dishonesty in the area of financial products. I would say at least half of all financial products sold aren't fit for purpose and the customers are unaware.

One of the reasons I’m so wary of insurers is that I could quite easily have fallen for one of the ‘scams’. I let my household insurance rollover a few years ago, having had a short renewal e mail telling me that effectively nothing had changed with the policy.
A couple of weeks later, all the new documents arrived and I idly looked through them. Fortunately I was awake enough to see a new piece of small print in the actual policy document giving me 28 days to get a burglar alarm professionally fitted along with a service contract - something that would actually have cost more than the annual policy!
I phoned the company up in a rage, and they eventually agreed to insure me for the rest of the year without the new clause and send me a replacement policy document.
Searches online revealed that others had fallen for this and found themselves un-insured after making claims.
Just to make it clear, I’ve no problem with insurers changing their requirements, but to not mention a change as huge as this with the renewal offer is disgraceful and can only be a claim avoidance strategy.

It's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

[RSpiston]

Foss62 said:

One of the reasons I’m so wary of insurers is that I could quite easily have fallen for one of the ‘scams’. I let my household insurance rollover a few years ago, having had a short renewal e mail telling me that effectively nothing had changed with the policy.
A couple of weeks later, all the new documents arrived and I idly looked through them. Fortunately I was awake enough to see a new piece of small print in the actual policy document giving me 28 days to get a burglar alarm professionally fitted along with a service contract - something that would actually have cost more than the annual policy!
I phoned the company up in a rage, and they eventually agreed to insure me for the rest of the year without the new clause and send me a replacement policy document.
Searches online revealed that others had fallen for this and found themselves un-insured after making claims.
Just to make it clear, I’ve no problem with insurers changing their requirements, but to not mention a change as huge as this with the renewal offer is disgraceful and can only be a claim avoidance strategy.

Wow, that's utterly disgraceful ! Which insurer was that ?!

[Chromegrill]

How are you supposed to know if you bought a car already with an invisible mod like PPF (OK maybe bad example now given the precedent) or a remap, and the vendor hadn't made you aware (maybe they bought it from someone who didn't admit to it)?

On a related theme, given I'm renewing my car insurance soon do I need to declare the little furry dice dangling from the rear view mirror? As it's a period classic I think they enhance its appearance. They very probably double its value. So is this a declarable mod?