Modifications - for insurance purposes.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

cologne2792 said:

One is 400 litre water tank - which initially did take a bit of insuring but the company's happy now.

That's brilliant. I hate it when my screen washer bottle runs dry. 400 litres must last forever.

[So]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So said:

Mr Tidy said:

It's not easy for sure!

My current BMW Z4 Coupe has been retro-fitted with cruise control, cup-holders and rear parking sensors - but they were all options when the car was built. So are they modifications or not? I only know because I checked the OEM spec, but how many people do that?

I declared a custom cat-back exhaust, different Z4 wheels and a non-standard gear-knob to my current insurer and they were fine with all of those.

Seems a bit of a minefield on an older car though!

If you don't declare them, and your cup holders cause a serious accident, your insurer may deny the claim.

Forgetting about cup holders, but as a general principle, if you fail to declare something, a claim can be rejected even if the claim has nothing to do with what you failed to declare.

I am not a lawyer, but your thinking is "they wouldn't have insured if they had known the full picture". I very much doubt an insurer would find a sympathetic ear, were they to try to persuade a judge that they have invalidated a claim due to undeclared cup holders.

I did say "forgetting about cup holders". The point I was making is that some people think that you can fail to disclose or lie to insurers, and it can only come back to bite you if any subsequent claim is related to the non disclosure or the lie. That isn't the case.

But how modified would a car need to be for an insurer not to insure? I can see your point if an insurer genuinely would not have insured at any price, but where they would have insured I intuitively don’t see how they could later decline a claim on an irrelevance.

I would be interested to hear from someone genuinely in the know though.

[Lindun]

So said:

But how modified would a car need to be for an insurer not to insure? I can see your point if an insurer genuinely would not have insured at any price, but where they would have insured I intuitively don’t see how they could later decline a claim on an irrelevance.

I would be interested to hear from someone genuinely in the know though.

They have a clear set of underwriting criteria. If they can show that the car falls outside this then it’s fine. They decide what they will insure. One might refuse any car with metallic paint. It’s their choice.

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

In summary - everything you have done to 'improve' the car from the point the car was sold new should be ticked...I use Compare the market (other comparison sites are available) and just tick the boxes as required...
OEM equivalent items such as wiper blades, headlight bulbs, brake pads/disks etc do not need to be specified...but items like grooved disks need to be declared if grooved disks weren't fitted as standard.

[So]

Lindun said:

So said:

But how modified would a car need to be for an insurer not to insure? I can see your point if an insurer genuinely would not have insured at any price, but where they would have insured I intuitively don’t see how they could later decline a claim on an irrelevance.

I would be interested to hear from someone genuinely in the know though.

They have a clear set of underwriting criteria. If they can show that the car falls outside this then it’s fine. They decide what they will insure. One might refuse any car with metallic paint. It’s their choice.

Sure.

But if for example you've got a Mini and the wheels on it are genuine Mini, but not the ones it left the factory with. Someone has added genuine Mini spotlights and the chequerboard roof. You don't check these things and then have an accident because someone pulls out in front of you. Are you suggesting the insurer will seek to decline the claim?

I am fairly confident that the insurer would have insured the car had they known about the modifications, albeit they may have wanted a small premium increase. So I would not expect them to try to decline to pay..

[TwigtheWonderkid]

So said:

But how modified would a car need to be for an insurer not to insure? I can see your point if an insurer genuinely would not have insured at any price, but where they would have insured I intuitively don’t see how they could later decline a claim on an irrelevance.

I would be interested to hear from someone genuinely in the know though.

I wasn't addressing that issue. I was just saying that some people are under the impression that if a claim is unrelated to the non disclosure, the insurer is powerless to take any action. That isn't true.

If you fail to disclose a speeding conviction, and your car is stolen, then if the insurance company don't insure anyone with speeding convictions, or they do but not if they drive your car, or are your age, then they can throw your claim out.

[So]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So said:

But how modified would a car need to be for an insurer not to insure? I can see your point if an insurer genuinely would not have insured at any price, but where they would have insured I intuitively don’t see how they could later decline a claim on an irrelevance.

I would be interested to hear from someone genuinely in the know though.

I wasn't addressing that issue. I was just saying that some people are under the impression that if a claim is unrelated to the non disclosure, the insurer is powerless to take any action. That isn't true.

If you fail to disclose a speeding conviction, and your car is stolen, then if the insurance company don't insure anyone with speeding convictions, or they do but not if they drive your car, or are your age, then they can throw your claim out.

In the context of this thread that isn't really relevant. The thread is really about minor modifications that an owner may or may not know about. Not a situation where a modification makes the vehicle uninsurable.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

So said:

If you don't declare them, and your cup holders cause a serious accident, your insurer may deny the claim.

This is what you said. Why did you mention the cup holders causing a serious accident? If there is an insurer that doesn't cover cars with after market cup holders, whether they cause the accident or not is irrelevant.

[lyonspride]

It's less about the safety of the modifications, than it is about profiling the driver..... If you mod certain aspects of your car, your more likely to be involved in an accident, it really is that simple.

I phoned my ins company to tell them i'd got an after market airhorn fitted, no problem, no extra cost, but I told them.

[Johnnytheboy]

It's also about whether the cost of the modification's repair is covered.

My Focus has paint protection film on the front half. I had a very minor front prang some years ago and the repairer took it upon themselves to do a surprising amount of respraying.

I was a little miffed that I was going to have to shell out quite a bit to have the ppf replaced for what seemed like some rather OTT repainting.

To my surprise my ins co paid up for it, but asked me to list it as a modification henceforth, though the nearest we could agree on as a category was "partial respray in non-standard colour".

[Lindun]

So said:

Sure.

But if for example you've got a Mini and the wheels on it are genuine Mini, but not the ones it left the factory with. Someone has added genuine Mini spotlights and the chequerboard roof. You don't check these things and then have an accident because someone pulls out in front of you. Are you suggesting the insurer will seek to decline the claim?

I am fairly confident that the insurer would have insured the car had they known about the modifications, albeit they may have wanted a small premium increase. So I would not expect them to try to decline to pay..

Aren’t we just going round and round in circles here? I’m sure I’ve said that reasonableness applies, that being what would a reasonable person, reasonably be expected to know. Your scenario is simple and At no point have I suggested that they might not insure it. I gave an extreme example of what an insurer might have as their underwriting criteria, that’s all.

Let’s try to be a bit clearer with a different example. If you don’t declare stanced wheels with stretched tyres gets stolen and your insurer says it wouldn’t have insured the car if it had known, then you’re screwed as no reasonable person wouldn’t reasonably know that those wheels and tyres aren’t standard. I’m sure some smart arse will now say “how will the insurer know as it’s been stolen”, well people are stupid and tend to incriminate themselves very easily.

[jonmiles]

markyb_lcy said:

Sure, you can try the ignorance method, would love to hear if that has worked.

Interesting point however..

I bought a second hand TVR from a TVR dealer which they themselves had modded by being rechipped and 2 cats removed (but not the main one). The dealer then went bust after the collapse of TVR.

As these mods don't show on my Sales Invoice how would anyone ever know. I'm no mechanic.

[Lindun]

jonmiles said:

Interesting point however..

I bought a second hand TVR from a TVR dealer which they themselves had modded by being rechipped and 2 cats removed (but not the main one). The dealer then went bust after the collapse of TVR.

As these mods don't show on my Sales Invoice how would anyone ever know. I'm no mechanic.

Is it reasonable for you to know about the mods? I’m sure you’ll have been told about it at MOt / service time

[jonmiles]

Lindun said:

jonmiles said:

Interesting point however..

I bought a second hand TVR from a TVR dealer which they themselves had modded by being rechipped and 2 cats removed (but not the main one). The dealer then went bust after the collapse of TVR.

As these mods don't show on my Sales Invoice how would anyone ever know. I'm no mechanic.

Is it reasonable for you to know about the mods? I’m sure you’ll have been told about it at MOt / service time

Your standard MOT tester won't have a clue about the Cats as long as it passes - or the rechipping.

[cologne2792]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

cologne2792 said:

One is 400 litre water tank - which initially did take a bit of insuring but the company's happy now.

That's brilliant. I hate it when my screen washer bottle runs dry. 400 litres must last forever.

Yes, that's very true.
I must remember to top it up though, in 2026.

[Lindun]

jonmiles said:

Your standard MOT tester won't have a clue about the Cats as long as it passes - or the rechipping.

And the guy who services it?

[BertBert]

cologne2792 said:

Yes, that's very true.
I must remember to top it up though, in 2026.

It'll take the whole year to fill it with Halfords screen wash and cost a bomb.
Bert

[jonmiles]

Lindun said:

jonmiles said:

Your standard MOT tester won't have a clue about the Cats as long as it passes - or the rechipping.

And the guy who services it?

How would he know? It's just the 2 pre-cats that were removed not the main Cat so it still passes an MOT. The pre-cats are not visible being inside pipes.

[Lindun]

jonmiles said:

How would he know? It's just the 2 pre-cats that were removed not the main Cat so it still passes an MOT. The pre-cats are not visible being inside pipes.

Then you’ll probably be OK, just like the guy who replaces the air filter with a K&N one.

[jonmiles]

Lindun said:

jonmiles said:

How would he know? It's just the 2 pre-cats that were removed not the main Cat so it still passes an MOT. The pre-cats are not visible being inside pipes.

Then you’ll probably be OK, just like the guy who replaces the air filter with a K&N one.

Sorry, I wasn't picking a row. I was just asking how I would be expected to know that if it came to light after I'd had a bad crash if I hadn't been told about it.