Primary cat deletes - DVSA crackdown?

[RSTurboPaul]

Murph7355 said:

Caslad said:

I am aware of case of the garage in Wakefield which was completely de-catting cars, I’m not aware of a case where someone has been successfully prosecuted for replacing the oem catalysts with an aftermarket system which still passes the emissions test at mot. I would be grateful if you could point me to such an example.

With the way insurance is going in this country, the bigger concern for me would be an insurer investigating in the event of a claim.

An MOT tester might not be able to tell easily, but an insurer would be able to look, and if your car was found to be illegal I suspect you might struggle getting paid out.

I am certain there is a thread on here somewhere discussing that insurers cannot refuse to pay out a claim based on an aspect that had and has no material bearing on a given claim situation at hand.

[VanquishRider]

Calinours said:

Thanks ??

Aston Service London - is that the outfit owned by Desmond Smail? - I understand that another hugely respected guy - Peter Stratford (Aston London) is now semi or maybe now even fully retired.

Some of these people I have used and have great knowledge of. Some I have had interactions with and they are good guys. Others are highly recommended by people I have a lot of respect for and speak highly of these outfits. I do whatever I can myself, but don't have all the gear or the space to do all tasks.

I know MB at BR has had some peoples car for a year for a steering rack.... Others have had a lot of HVAC components swapped for the sake of a £30 valve that was easily accessible. Horses for courses and all that. Others swear by the quality of the engine, exhaust and suspension work he's done for them.

Two guys had all stainless bolts fitted to their undersides with duralac to prevent corrosion fitted by one of the independents listed. One had them all removed by MB for crap mild steel. The other had them all removed by Works for crap mild steel. Both billed the customer for the pleasure. Neither was asked or informed. Neither was happy when they found out.

One of these independents bought a car from BR and didn't get home before it died. We all have bad days at work.

And there is now Q Branch also. Better mention those as will get told off otherwise.

[VanquishRider]

RSTurboPaul said:

Murph7355 said:

Caslad said:

I am aware of case of the garage in Wakefield which was completely de-catting cars, I’m not aware of a case where someone has been successfully prosecuted for replacing the oem catalysts with an aftermarket system which still passes the emissions test at mot. I would be grateful if you could point me to such an example.

With the way insurance is going in this country, the bigger concern for me would be an insurer investigating in the event of a claim.

An MOT tester might not be able to tell easily, but an insurer would be able to look, and if your car was found to be illegal I suspect you might struggle getting paid out.

I am certain there is a thread on here somewhere discussing that insurers cannot refuse to pay out a claim based on an aspect that had and has no material bearing on a given claim situation at hand.

Insurance ask all those annoying questions for a reason. Getting a power hike for removing a CAT will be one of those questions as it also involves "chipping" the software to make it work.

If you wrap it round a post and it's a £10k fix. They might not look too hard. You cause multiple deaths and I guarantee you they will look at everything in minute detail to find a way out of being liable for the costs.

[Calinours]

LTP said:

Calinours said:

Jon can confirm my spectrum-like inability to recognise a joke, now it seems I don’t even know when I’m inadvertently making one…..

So, you two are sort of metaphorically the Jack Sprat and Wife of PH?

Depends who is the wife…

[RSTurboPaul]

VanquishRider said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Murph7355 said:

Caslad said:

I am aware of case of the garage in Wakefield which was completely de-catting cars, I’m not aware of a case where someone has been successfully prosecuted for replacing the oem catalysts with an aftermarket system which still passes the emissions test at mot. I would be grateful if you could point me to such an example.

With the way insurance is going in this country, the bigger concern for me would be an insurer investigating in the event of a claim.

An MOT tester might not be able to tell easily, but an insurer would be able to look, and if your car was found to be illegal I suspect you might struggle getting paid out.

I am certain there is a thread on here somewhere discussing that insurers cannot refuse to pay out a claim based on an aspect that had and has no material bearing on a given claim situation at hand.

Insurance ask all those annoying questions for a reason. Getting a power hike for removing a CAT will be one of those questions as it also involves "chipping" the software to make it work.

If you wrap it round a post and it's a £10k fix. They might not look too hard. You cause multiple deaths and I guarantee you they will look at everything in minute detail to find a way out of being liable for the costs.

I think that is a response looking at a different situation to the one here.

Extra power following chipping that has not been notified to the insurer would seem relevant to any claim involving a single-vehicle accident.

A change in emissions following a decat (which may or may not result in exceeding the MOT test limits specified for the OEM setup) and the removal of the cat resulting in an MOT failure on that basis alone if noticed by the tester, would seem to have no bearing on the causes of an(y) accident if that is the sole change to the vehicle, and it is my recollection that contributors to the aforementioned thread asserted a payout would not and could not be rejected on that basis.