Remapping legality
Discussion
kambites said:
I'm pretty sure it's also illegal (although largely untestable) to modify a vehicle in such a way as to change it's emissions; which realistically any ECU remap will.
Suppose you could say it is tax fraud as the VED is based on CO2 and a car with more power will produce more.To test it they would have to run it through the tests they based the original banding on.
You know when the government try to pull that on us that they have run out of ideas like Alan partridge pitching Monkey Tennis as a programme idea.
seopher said:
Remapping is legal.
Not informing your insurer that you have remapped the vehicle invalidates your insurance and is therefore not legal.
Remapping may invalidate your warranty, but that's a "you" issue rather than a legal one.
Isn't this a grey area tho, you're still insured 3rd party if you modify your car and not tell themNot informing your insurer that you have remapped the vehicle invalidates your insurance and is therefore not legal.
Remapping may invalidate your warranty, but that's a "you" issue rather than a legal one.
HedgeyGedgey said:
Isn't this a grey area tho, you're still insured 3rd party if you modify your car and not tell them
Not quite - the insurance company is legally bound to pay the third party in the case of an accident; they then have legal grounds to persue you for whatever they have to pay. In practice, they will pay out even first party claims unless they have a realistic way to claim that the modification directly caused the claim to be made; although obviously they wont pay for the modified parts.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 2nd February 17:36
kambites said:
HedgeyGedgey said:
Isn't this a grey area tho, you're still insured 3rd party if you modify your car and not tell them
Not quite - the insurance company is legally bound to pay the third party in the case of an accident; they then have legal grounds to persue you for whatever they have to pay. In practice, they will pay out even first party claims unless they have a realistic way to claim that the modification directly caused the claim to be made; although obviously they wont pay for the modified parts.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 2nd February 17:36
-Your insurance is not invalidated
-You will not get an IN10
-The 3rd party will be paid out
-Your insurer will quote you what they have 'adjusted' your policy too after discovering the modifications, they will either take this adjustment out of your comprehensive payout, or seek costs directly from you if the adjustment exceeds the payout (which lets be honest, if your young and run a modified car it probably will be)
-No payout will be given for the modifications, although they will factor them in when they determine the value of the vehicle if such modifications are determind to reduce the value.
Had 2 friends go through this, one after a biddy in a Jazz barreled into the back of his mk1 Cupra R, it was rather extensively modified (Full exhaust system, hybrid turbo, induction, map etc etc). He went entirely through the 3rd party who claimed fault, 3rd party paid him a decent value for his car and he never even heard anything back from his own insurer after canceling the policy.
Other pal binned his stripped out Saxo VTR into a farmers field with myself as an unwilling passenger. Farmer wanted to go through insurance for the worlds most expensive wall and untold damage to his grasslands, I've gotta give props to the old guy he really took the insurance adjusters round the bend, think he got a couple of grand for an old fence we wiped out, more money for damage to a bit of waste grassland that I haven't seen anything growing/grazing on in at least ten years
. Anyowho insurer paid the farmer out, and paid for the retards Saxo to be removed from the aforementioned field, they then made an 'adjustment' which was greater than the value of the car, I'm pretty sure it was settled with my pal essentially not getting a single penny and needing to pay for the worlds most expensive recovery truck (think they quoted the best part of £300 for a 8mile tow).Anywho those have been my 2nd hand experiences with undeclared modifications, personally I wouldn't declare them myself unless I was >25 and being given reasonable quotes. Although I don't currently run anything modified.
Remapping 'could' be illegal in a Construction and Use sense (under Reg 61a) but since the proof of illegality would require prepping and running the car on an NEDC cycle as used at type approval, costing approx £10k, in order to fine someone £1,500 if found guilty at some point down the line, it's highly unlikely to happen. A limited sample of testing I've seen suggests that for most cars the NEDC is so low load on the engine, and involves parts of the map that any remapper is unlikely to fiddle with, that they would pass inspection under R61a.
If you start removing exhaust aftertreatment that's required for type approval (DPF, SCR, EGR etc) it will most likely fail, but it'd have to be tested first either at MOT or NEDC.
Insurance is a different matter, and certainly they should be informed at the time.
If you start removing exhaust aftertreatment that's required for type approval (DPF, SCR, EGR etc) it will most likely fail, but it'd have to be tested first either at MOT or NEDC.
Insurance is a different matter, and certainly they should be informed at the time.
kambites said:
In practice, they will pay out even first party claims unless they have a realistic way to claim that the modification directly caused the claim to be made; although obviously they wont pay for the modified parts.
Not the case, the modifications involvement in the claim is irrelevant, if the insurer would have accepted the modification had it been disclosed, they are likely to continue and ask you to pay the difference - assuming they believe it's a genuine oversight. If your insurer would not had accepted the modification regardless, or suspect you are being fraudulent, they can void your policy, avoid your claim, pay the third party claim, and then come after you for it. Edited by kambites on Thursday 2nd February 17:36
WillG said:
kambites said:
In practice, they will pay out even first party claims unless they have a realistic way to claim that the modification directly caused the claim to be made; although obviously they wont pay for the modified parts.
Not the case, the modifications involvement in the claim is irrelevant, if the insurer would have accepted the modification had it been disclosed, they are likely to continue and ask you to pay the difference - assuming they believe it's a genuine oversight. If your insurer would not had accepted the modification regardless, or suspect you are being fraudulent, they can void your policy, avoid your claim, pay the third party claim, and then come after you for it. Edited by kambites on Thursday 2nd February 17:36
My understanding would be that in court they'd only have a vaguely reasonable case if they could prove the modification contributed to the accident? I.e. If you're running a full exhaust, it wouldn't make a difference if you were shunted up the arse as your full exhaust had no bearing on this (although they may just pay out for the OE parts). Or if you'd fitted larger brakes discs and calipers then binned it on a bend (as the larger disks as calipers would be irrelevant), or had a full exhaust and binned it on black ice into an orphanage.....
Genuinely interested.
WaferThinHam said:
Correct me if I'm wrong on this (doubtless you will :-) )
My understanding would be that in court they'd only have a vaguely reasonable case if they could prove the modification contributed to the accident? I.e. If you're running a full exhaust, it wouldn't make a difference if you were shunted up the arse as your full exhaust had no bearing on this (although they may just pay out for the OE parts). Or if you'd fitted larger brakes discs and calipers then binned it on a bend (as the larger disks as calipers would be irrelevant), or had a full exhaust and binned it on black ice into an orphanage.....
Genuinely interested.
It all comes back to you lying (by stating not modified) when signing up to the contract of insurance, and whether the contract is still valid. the fact that it's a modification is irrelevant. The non disclosed info doesn't have to be physical relevant to your claim. If for example your don't disclose points on your licence and your car is stolen, your insurer could avoid the claim because of the act of you not disclosing the points, rather than the points increasing the likelihood of your car being stolen. My understanding would be that in court they'd only have a vaguely reasonable case if they could prove the modification contributed to the accident? I.e. If you're running a full exhaust, it wouldn't make a difference if you were shunted up the arse as your full exhaust had no bearing on this (although they may just pay out for the OE parts). Or if you'd fitted larger brakes discs and calipers then binned it on a bend (as the larger disks as calipers would be irrelevant), or had a full exhaust and binned it on black ice into an orphanage.....
Genuinely interested.
Or get yourself a more broad-minded insurer...........mine simply isn't interested in what I do to the Evo, the only thing they've said they need to hear about is enlarged engine capacity. I've made a point of insisting they know about the various engine, brake and suspension mods it's had done to it, including the remap, but they're just not bothered. They're a reputable company who know their market. In respect of other legalities, if it still passes the MOT after a remap, what's the problem?
WaferThinHam said:
Correct me if I'm wrong on this (doubtless you will :-) )
My understanding would be that in court they'd only have a vaguely reasonable case if they could prove the modification contributed to the accident? I.e. If you're running a full exhaust, it wouldn't make a difference if you were shunted up the arse as your full exhaust had no bearing on this (although they may just pay out for the OE parts). Or if you'd fitted larger brakes discs and calipers then binned it on a bend (as the larger disks as calipers would be irrelevant), or had a full exhaust and binned it on black ice into an orphanage.....
Genuinely interested.
Yes wrong. My understanding would be that in court they'd only have a vaguely reasonable case if they could prove the modification contributed to the accident? I.e. If you're running a full exhaust, it wouldn't make a difference if you were shunted up the arse as your full exhaust had no bearing on this (although they may just pay out for the OE parts). Or if you'd fitted larger brakes discs and calipers then binned it on a bend (as the larger disks as calipers would be irrelevant), or had a full exhaust and binned it on black ice into an orphanage.....
Genuinely interested.
The relevant legislation is the Consumer Insurance Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/contents/enacted)
It all depends what the insurer would have done had you told them about the changes - not if you would have stopped in time because your brakes were smaller/bigger.
If the insurer would not have insured you - they can void your policy.
If you have deliberately mislead the insurer - they can void your policy.
If the insurer would have insured you, and you didn't deliberately mislead them - they can charge you the extra.
kambites said:
J4CKO said:
Suppose you could say it is tax fraud as the VED is based on CO2 and a car with more power will produce more.
The question isn't CO2 tax banding, the question is whether the car is road legal at all under construction and use regulations. Most of my cars fly through checks including in the past the couple of remapped ones ,usually with comments of how clean they run .
But I also have seen many on rolling roads with very disappointed owners having spent £££s to have a car producing less than standard power and emissions off the scale .
kambites said:
I'm pretty sure it's also illegal (although largely untestable) to modify a vehicle in such a way as to change it's emissions; which realistically any ECU remap will.
But having a car with emissions higher than the relevant CO2 tax band within which it sits out of the factory doesn't seem to have bothered HMG (VW as the case in point) - AFAIK, VW diesels haven't been rebanded?Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff