Thinking about not declaring your mods? Think again!
Discussion
From my local paper - Car owner sued by her Insurance Company
Plotloss said:
Citing carpet mats as a modification seems a bit harsh.
In for a penny, in for a pound was Diamond's view, I guess.Article said:
Other changes included extra lights, rear lamp clusters, foot pedal covers, gear lever knob, carpet mats, seat covers, multi-disc player and head unit.
Missed those 'mods' 
Edited by pincher on Friday 14th May 21:35
randlemarcus said:
Kit80 said:
And they were fairly substantional mods.
Hmm. I can't see any performance enhancing ones, just cosmetic tat. The only argumental point would be the lowering, the rest might affect write-off value, not crashability.But yes the rest was cosmetic crap that should'nt really be counted in my opinion.
Seat covers? I wonder how many commercial vehicle drivers declare them....
Sounds like a fairly typical case for a young driver though- insured on mums policy, lots of cheap mods but nothing that would actually cost much or make the car any better, and a silly situation with a bit of peer pressure resulting in the loss of a life. I guess the argument is that even if the car was standard, the situation may well have been the same.
One thing I don't get with insurers is that when you declare modifications, the policy only ever goes one way. Even things like better brakes, harnesses and even removing seats, which surely means less people to pay out to in an accident. Yet they never ask what tyres are fitted, which can have a massive affect on the cars safety.
Sounds like a fairly typical case for a young driver though- insured on mums policy, lots of cheap mods but nothing that would actually cost much or make the car any better, and a silly situation with a bit of peer pressure resulting in the loss of a life. I guess the argument is that even if the car was standard, the situation may well have been the same.
One thing I don't get with insurers is that when you declare modifications, the policy only ever goes one way. Even things like better brakes, harnesses and even removing seats, which surely means less people to pay out to in an accident. Yet they never ask what tyres are fitted, which can have a massive affect on the cars safety.
"Reading between the lines, they suspect that she was fronting for him. So are hitting for everything they can."
reads about right ,but couldn't pin it as he was a named driver, however that list of "mods" is not something you would expect you average 40-50 year old mother to have on her car. imo
reads about right ,but couldn't pin it as he was a named driver, however that list of "mods" is not something you would expect you average 40-50 year old mother to have on her car. imo
ArtVandelay said:
What about tyres that aren't standard?
Guess that would count as a consumable? Would get a bit silly if you had to declare that you have put (for example) new wiper blades on that were only the Halfords own-brand, instead of Bosch - just in case they dodn't clear the screen quite as well as OEM!bullitinhead said:
"Reading between the lines, they suspect that she was fronting for him. So are hitting for everything they can."
reads about right ,but couldn't pin it as he was a named driver, however that list of "mods" is not something you would expect you average 40-50 year old mother to have on her car. imo
Yes, I think this would be the important point - they know she's fronting so going for everything they can....not sure I disagree with their behaviour...reads about right ,but couldn't pin it as he was a named driver, however that list of "mods" is not something you would expect you average 40-50 year old mother to have on her car. imo
pincher said:
ArtVandelay said:
What about tyres that aren't standard?
Guess that would count as a consumable? Would get a bit silly if you had to declare that you have put (for example) new wiper blades on that were only the Halfords own-brand, instead of Bosch - just in case they dodn't clear the screen quite as well as OEM!falkster said:
randlemarcus said:
Kit80 said:
And they were fairly substantional mods.
Hmm. I can't see any performance enhancing ones, just cosmetic tat. The only argumental point would be the lowering, the rest might affect write-off value, not crashability.You have 800 quid alloys on your car, you are going to increase the chances of it/them being stolen = insurance claim, don't declare them = invalidate insurance claim. Simple.
IIRC - Diamond don't insure mods at all, and the main driver has to female, but as fronting is so hard to stick in court they look like they are going for the mods. Their argument will not be that the mods are a factor in the accident, rather that they wouldn't have insured the car in the first place thus voiding the policy "ab initio".
Kit80 said:
falkster said:
randlemarcus said:
Kit80 said:
And they were fairly substantional mods.
Hmm. I can't see any performance enhancing ones, just cosmetic tat. The only argumental point would be the lowering, the rest might affect write-off value, not crashability.You have 800 quid alloys on your car, you are going to increase the chances of it/them being stolen = insurance claim, don't declare them = invalidate insurance claim. Simple.
I had it 3 years ago when my wife wrote off our Z3M and, as Id changed my company as their quote was so cheap, Id forgotten to tell them about an SP30 I had from 4 years 6 months prior. They said I failed to disclose. Did this make my wife crash the car? Would my policy have gone up if I had told them? They initially told me they would not be paying anyting but after many solicitors letters they agreed that the points wouldnt have made any adjustment to my premium but I'd failed to disclose so was in breach of the contract.
We managed to get them to agree to a 90% payout but that was after getting the ombudsman involved.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff