Undeclared mods and scotes

[xjsdriver]

I know that most of us love our fast cars, apologies to those who don't. What's the general feeling on here about utter scrote bellends that modify their cars and fail to notify their insurers?
Execution at dawn, or simply notify plod who may, or may not take an interest?



Apologies for typo in heading......Scrotes - damn my big hands and small icons on phone's screen......

Edited by xjsdriver on Sunday 15th March 01:50

[ohtari]

I do hope you never do anything even slightly illegal, in case it messes your whiter than whites...

Live and let live. Even if they cause a fault accident, the insurance will pay out before chasing the policy holder for costs.

[Codswallop]

How would you know whether someone has correctly insured their modified car or not?

Leave the job of policing to the police.

[LoonR1]

ohtari said:

I do hope you never do anything even slightly illegal, in case it messes your whiter than whites...

Live and let live. Even if they cause a fault accident, the insurance will pay out before chasing the policy holder for costs.

Not true.

It depends on the specifics of the modifications and whether the insurer can cancel from the start of the policy, so it never existed in a legal sense. That puts the burden on the MIB, which we all fund via our premiums, so we'd be paying for their insurance.

Recovery from a driver is nigh on impossible.

[xjsdriver]

ohtari said:

I do hope you never do anything even slightly illegal, in case it messes your whiter than whites...

Live and let live. Even if they cause a fault accident, the insurance will pay out before chasing the policy holder for costs.

I'm not claiming to be whiter than white - I'm just discussing the principle. HTH

[xjsdriver]

Codswallop said:

How would you know whether someone has correctly insured their modified car or not?

Leave the job of policing to the police.

So are you advocating Ohtari's viewpoint of live and let live? or would you grass them up? Hypothetically speaking of course.

[LoonR1]

Codswallop said:

How would you know whether someone has correctly insured their modified car or not?

Leave the job of policing to the police.

Maybe they tell you?

[Codswallop]

xjsdriver said:

Codswallop said:

How would you know whether someone has correctly insured their modified car or not?

Leave the job of policing to the police.

So are you advocating Ohtari's viewpoint of live and let live? or would you grass them up? Hypothetically speaking of course.

To an extent, yes. Personally I would rather avoid living in a society where everyone is out to get everyone else.

LoonR1 said:

Codswallop said:

How would you know whether someone has correctly insured their modified car or not?

Leave the job of policing to the police.

Maybe they tell you?

If it was a friend or a family member, I would make it very clear that I did not approve of what they were doing, would make them aware of the possible repercussions in the event of an incident, and would pester them until they resolved the issue.

I doubt a stranger would tell me of their illegal activities, however the type to boast about such things is usually dim enough to be caught out by the insurers or police.

[Retroman]

I think false injury claims are a much bigger issue in regards to inflated premiums.
Strangely, more people probably think it's ok to put in a fake injury claim than to drive around with undeclared mods.

I'd rather people didn't do either of the above but if they did i don't care enough to report them.

[ohtari]

LoonR1 said:

ohtari said:

I do hope you never do anything even slightly illegal, in case it messes your whiter than whites...

Live and let live. Even if they cause a fault accident, the insurance will pay out before chasing the policy holder for costs.

Not true.

It depends on the specifics of the modifications and whether the insurer can cancel from the start of the policy, so it never existed in a legal sense. That puts the burden on the MIB, which we all fund via our premiums, so we'd be paying for their insurance.

Recovery from a driver is nigh on impossible.

Thanks Loon, always nice to have somebody in the know on here. If recovery from the policy holder is so difficult, then I'm surprised at the number of times I've heard about it. Is it one of those "I know a guy" things where everybody is talking out of their ass?

I assume the main repercussion then would be a driving without insurance charge?

ETA: I personally pay a vastly inflated premium due to the declared modifications to my car. But the idea of ratting on somebody seems like an utterly nasty, spiteful thing to do.

Edited by ohtari on Sunday 15th March 12:07

[LoonR1]

ohtari said:

Thanks Loon, always nice to have somebody in the know on here. If recovery from the policy holder is so difficult, then I'm surprised at the number of times I've heard about it. Is it one of those "I know a guy" things where everybody is talking out of their ass?

I assume the main repercussion then would be a driving without insurance charge?

There are occasions where it is possible, but very rare. The right is there for insurers to recover TP costs, if they are only RTA insurers, but it is a technical right in practice. What you may have heard is someone who has made a dodgy own damage claim and insurers are much keener to recover that, alongside it being much easier.

I think the police could prosecute and more likely to stick than an insurance fraud charge. IMO. I fully expect GrimNasty to appear now to have a dig as usual.

[monthefish]

xjsdriver said:

I know that most of us love our fast cars, apologies to those who don't. What's the general feeling on here about utter scrote bellends that modify their cars and fail to notify their insurers?
Execution at dawn, or simply notify plod who may, or may not take an interest?

Depending on when you owned your XJS and Merc 190e Cosworth, the chances are that you yourself replaced parts (eg tyres, brakes) which exceeded the performance of those originally fitted to the vehicle by the factory. I trust these were all declared?

[LoonR1]

monthefish said:

Depending on when you owned your XJS and Merc 190e Cosworth, the chances are that you yourself replaced parts (eg tyres, brakes) which exceeded the performance of those originally fitted to the vehicle by the factory. I trust these were all declared?

Comments like this just make the poster look stupid. Pedantry isn't clever and it doesn't have much of a place in insurance, despite what people think. Insurers operate on ICOBS principles which precede any formalised regulation, yet were fully adopted by both thenFsAa and now the FCA.

[Negative Creep]

Certainly back in my modding days it was widespread. I'm not condoning it, but considering the low risk of being caught out compared to the very high risk of a massively increased premium it's no wonder it went on

[xjsdriver]

monthefish said:

Depending on when you owned your XJS and Merc 190e Cosworth, the chances are that you yourself replaced parts (eg tyres, brakes) which exceeded the performance of those originally fitted to the vehicle by the factory. I trust these were all declared?

I owned them in the late 90's/early y2k and always used OEM parts, since you ask. The Jag was always declared as the TWR version, but it was insured under classic car insurance, as was the Merc - so my quotes were always reasonable. HTH

[Nezquick]

LoonR1 said:

ohtari said:

I do hope you never do anything even slightly illegal, in case it messes your whiter than whites...

Live and let live. Even if they cause a fault accident, the insurance will pay out before chasing the policy holder for costs.

Not true.

It depends on the specifics of the modifications and whether the insurer can cancel from the start of the policy, so it never existed in a legal sense. That puts the burden on the MIB, which we all fund via our premiums, so we'd be paying for their insurance.

Recovery from a driver is nigh on impossible.

That's not strictly true - the MIB would only come into it if the driver was "untraced" or "uninsured" (i.e. he never actually took out a policy in the first place).

In the instance you refer to, the insurer would void/cancel the policy from inception but would still have to deal as Article 75 Insurer, which puts them in a similar position as the MIB in that they wouldn't have to pay the other insurers outlay or the first £300 towards any property damage claim. The MIB wouldn't actually be involved in a case such as that.

[LoonR1]

Nezquick said:

That's not strictly true - the MIB would only come into it if the driver was "untraced" or "uninsured" (i.e. he never actually took out a policy in the first place).

In the instance you refer to, the insurer would void/cancel the policy from inception but would still have to deal as Article 75 Insurer, which puts them in a similar position as the MIB in that they wouldn't have to pay the other insurers outlay or the first £300 towards any property damage claim. The MIB wouldn't actually be involved in a case such as that.

Fair point, missed a step. Oops.

[monthefish]

LoonR1 said:

monthefish said:

Depending on when you owned your XJS and Merc 190e Cosworth, the chances are that you yourself replaced parts (eg tyres, brakes) which exceeded the performance of those originally fitted to the vehicle by the factory. I trust these were all declared?

Comments like this just make the poster look stupid. Pedantry isn't clever and it doesn't have much of a place in insurance, despite what people think. Insurers operate on ICOBS principles which precede any formalised regulation, yet were fully adopted by both thenFsAa and now the FCA.

Instead of being insulting, would it not be helpful to use your expertise in the field and clear up any ambiguity?

Genuine question, where is the line drawn with regards to replacement parts, and at what level is it considered a performance modification?

[LoonR1]

monthefish said:

LoonR1 said:

monthefish said:

Depending on when you owned your XJS and Merc 190e Cosworth, the chances are that you yourself replaced parts (eg tyres, brakes) which exceeded the performance of those originally fitted to the vehicle by the factory. I trust these were all declared?

Comments like this just make the poster look stupid. Pedantry isn't clever and it doesn't have much of a place in insurance, despite what people think. Insurers operate on ICOBS principles which precede any formalised regulation, yet were fully adopted by both thenFsAa and now the FCA.

Instead of being insulting, would it not be helpful to use your expertise in the field and clear up any ambiguity?

Genuine question, where is the line drawn with regards to replacement parts, and at what level is it considered a performance modification?

Because I do that every single time a thread like this crops up. There's a thread running called "justice at last" or something similar that undoubtedly prompted this thread. After a while it gets boring repeating the same stuff and being ignored, so instead, I get sarcastic. I think we've had windscreen wipers, dustcaps, filling up with petrol, replacing the oil, washing the car, replacing bulbs and so on as examples of the "you should declare them" brigade trying (and failing) to be smart.

[monthefish]

LoonR1 said:

monthefish said:

LoonR1 said:

monthefish said:

Depending on when you owned your XJS and Merc 190e Cosworth, the chances are that you yourself replaced parts (eg tyres, brakes) which exceeded the performance of those originally fitted to the vehicle by the factory. I trust these were all declared?

Comments like this just make the poster look stupid. Pedantry isn't clever and it doesn't have much of a place in insurance, despite what people think. Insurers operate on ICOBS principles which precede any formalised regulation, yet were fully adopted by both thenFsAa and now the FCA.

Instead of being insulting, would it not be helpful to use your expertise in the field and clear up any ambiguity?

Genuine question, where is the line drawn with regards to replacement parts, and at what level is it considered a performance modification?

Because I do that every single time a thread like this crops up. There's a thread running called "justice at last" or something similar that undoubtedly prompted this thread. After a while it gets boring repeating the same stuff and being ignored, so instead, I get sarcastic. I think we've had windscreen wipers, dustcaps, filling up with petrol, replacing the oil, washing the car, replacing bulbs and so on as examples of the "you should declare them" brigade trying (and failing) to be smart.

Just so that I'm clear, you can't be bothered answering a legitimate query, but you can be bothered to respond to the thread with insults?
Kinda sums up PH these days, but I always thought (hoped) SP&L would be a bit more grown-up and civil.


Also, you're saying that because previous threads have descended into (agreed - stupid) comments about windscreen wipers and dustcaps prevents/inhibits you from answering a legitimate query?

OK, how about things such as


-Exhausts
-Catalytic Converters
-Brake pads
-Brake discs
-Tyres

all parts that will be replaced throughout the life of the vehicle, and could conceivably (and possibly inadvertently) offer a performance benefit. I'd like to know where is the line drawn with regards to replacement parts, and at what level is it considered a performance modification in the eyes of the insurance industry?


How about you answer the query, and then then next time it is asked, you can simply refer back to this thread?
(or provide a link to any one of the (many?) previous thread where you have apparently answered this query, if indeed you feel the need to conserve your posting capacity).