Insurance voided due to car having PPF! HELP PLEASE!
Discussion
irc said:
bad company said:
This looks like a very similar case where the Ombudsman found in favour of AXA. I tried uploading the finding but I’m on a ship at sea with weak WiFi.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
" AXA then provided Mr W with his policy documents and asked him to make sure hishttps://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
information was correct at all times. The policy schedule said that the car had no
modifications and provided AXA’s definition of modifications:
“Any modification which change the maker’s standard specification including cosmetic
changes or manufacturer’s options.”"
That's a bit all encompassing. Manufacturer's options? So to get AXA insurance you need to tell them every option your car has. If it was bought second hand you might not even know. Winter tyres? New floor mats?
AXA? Count me out
PPF doesn't.
Pmifa said:
ingenieur said:
I think they do put pretty much everything in the small print. If you read the small print on a lot of financial products (and some other products) you will usually find the main reason you want the product is excluded from the product offering despite the marketing of the product promoting that sort of use. There is vast dishonesty in the area of financial products. I would say at least half of all financial products sold aren't fit for purpose and the customers are unaware.
Agree, it’s about time the regulators of this world banned it and made them use ‘large print’. Insurance companies just use it to dodge claims as they know the vast majority won’t read, or understand, it all. I have the same every year when renewing motorbike insurance. Go touring abroad and their favourite to hide is ‘yes you are covered riding abroad’ then hide the fact in the ‘small print’ that it’s only for bikes up to 125cc ffs. 98elise said:
irc said:
bad company said:
This looks like a very similar case where the Ombudsman found in favour of AXA. I tried uploading the finding but I’m on a ship at sea with weak WiFi.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
" AXA then provided Mr W with his policy documents and asked him to make sure hishttps://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
information was correct at all times. The policy schedule said that the car had no
modifications and provided AXA’s definition of modifications:
“Any modification which change the maker’s standard specification including cosmetic
changes or manufacturer’s options.”"
That's a bit all encompassing. Manufacturer's options? So to get AXA insurance you need to tell them every option your car has. If it was bought second hand you might not even know. Winter tyres? New floor mats?
AXA? Count me out
PPF doesn't.
PPF is a vinyl wrap that just happens to be transparent. One could make a convincing argument that a colour changing vinyl wrap is “different” in insurance terms because it can make the car stand out extraordinarily, whereas PPF is to all intents and purposes invisible.
I’m inclined to believe in this judgement the person was just unlucky to get an ombudsman who laboured on the words “vinyl wrap”, and disregarded the practical difference to consumers. One could easily buy a car with PPF already fitted and not realise it without looking very closely.
Durzel said:
Whilst I agree with you in principal, PPF is basically a vinyl wrap, albeit transparent. They complicate repairs, because a car with PPF that is involved in an accident that requires repainting will also need the PPF redone, and they are typically two different disciplines in automotive repair. There is also the issue of it not being advisable (possible?) to PPF freshly painted panels.
In short - a car that requires a damaged bumper to be fixed will cost significantly more and take significantly longer if it had PPF fitted and it’s being replaced. That extra time means extra hire car costs, etc.
This.In short - a car that requires a damaged bumper to be fixed will cost significantly more and take significantly longer if it had PPF fitted and it’s being replaced. That extra time means extra hire car costs, etc.
I thought the concept of PPF being an additional cost was discussed earlier in the thread.
Seems odd that people are ignoring that fact and instead referring to it as ‘invisible’ or irrelevant as it doesn’t affect performance or change the colour.
Anyone who has PPF fitted knows that it ain’t cheap.
Edit.
Random link. https://allthatgleams.co.uk/paint-protection-film-...
A whole car costs £3-5k plus vat.
A front end starts at £600, and would need to be added to the cost of a new bumper repair and paint.
Edited by Tommo87 on Wednesday 10th January 16:24
Edited by Tommo87 on Wednesday 10th January 16:37
I am insured with Admiral - just called them and only had to declare 'External decorative changes' to cover the PPF. Also got the agent to put a note on the policy to say this was specifically PPF. Only charged me £13 for the admin fee - all sorted and above board!
Just shows you the difference between insurers.
FG
Just shows you the difference between insurers.
FG
What I find really odd is I've had a couple of cars insured with AXA, and their policy on alloy wheels is that they don't consider them to affect insurance if they cost less than £1000.
Which seems like a strange stance in the face of them being so fussy about PPF. I think most of us would expect it to be the other way round.
Which seems like a strange stance in the face of them being so fussy about PPF. I think most of us would expect it to be the other way round.
Thought I would add to this after nonsense from Aviva....
Car had PPF fitted by Porsche at their cost.
Declared PPF since beginning of insurance.
Got rear ended and insurance covered PPF.
Got hit again couple years later. Now I am told it is an undeclared modification and replacing PPF is betterment because of wear and tear.
It is equivalent to saying we will repair your car but not paint it because paint wears and we don't want you to have better paint than before!!!
Also - PPF is latest self healing guaranteed for life (original owner) with no proof it "wears". Paint actually wears more than PPF for goodness sake!
I look forward to Ombudsman ruling noting that my insurer isn't even paying - i was hit by an enormous tractor
Car had PPF fitted by Porsche at their cost.
Declared PPF since beginning of insurance.
Got rear ended and insurance covered PPF.
Got hit again couple years later. Now I am told it is an undeclared modification and replacing PPF is betterment because of wear and tear.
It is equivalent to saying we will repair your car but not paint it because paint wears and we don't want you to have better paint than before!!!
Also - PPF is latest self healing guaranteed for life (original owner) with no proof it "wears". Paint actually wears more than PPF for goodness sake!
I look forward to Ombudsman ruling noting that my insurer isn't even paying - i was hit by an enormous tractor
woollyjoe said:
Thought I would add to this after nonsense from Aviva....
Car had PPF fitted by Porsche at their cost.
Declared PPF since beginning of insurance.
Got rear ended and insurance covered PPF.
Got hit again couple years later. Now I am told it is an undeclared modification and replacing PPF is betterment because of wear and tear.
It is equivalent to saying we will repair your car but not paint it because paint wears and we don't want you to have better paint than before!!!
Also - PPF is latest self healing guaranteed for life (original owner) with no proof it "wears". Paint actually wears more than PPF for goodness sake!
I look forward to Ombudsman ruling noting that my insurer isn't even paying - i was hit by an enormous tractor
Mental if you have been hit and their is a 3rd party to pursue as well as it costs them nothing extra! You could always claim direct from the 3rd party? Then it doesn't matter what's declared/not etc.Car had PPF fitted by Porsche at their cost.
Declared PPF since beginning of insurance.
Got rear ended and insurance covered PPF.
Got hit again couple years later. Now I am told it is an undeclared modification and replacing PPF is betterment because of wear and tear.
It is equivalent to saying we will repair your car but not paint it because paint wears and we don't want you to have better paint than before!!!
Also - PPF is latest self healing guaranteed for life (original owner) with no proof it "wears". Paint actually wears more than PPF for goodness sake!
I look forward to Ombudsman ruling noting that my insurer isn't even paying - i was hit by an enormous tractor
woollyjoe said:
Thought I would add to this after nonsense from Aviva....
Car had PPF fitted by Porsche at their cost.
Declared PPF since beginning of insurance.
Got rear ended and insurance covered PPF.
Got hit again couple years later. Now I am told it is an undeclared modification and replacing PPF is betterment because of wear and tear.
It is equivalent to saying we will repair your car but not paint it because paint wears and we don't want you to have better paint than before!!!
Also - PPF is latest self healing guaranteed for life (original owner) with no proof it "wears". Paint actually wears more than PPF for goodness sake!
I look forward to Ombudsman ruling noting that my insurer isn't even paying - i was hit by an enormous tractor
If Aviva confirmed originally that the PPF was noted as a modification and you have proof of that then they cannot simply turn around a few years later and on the same policy say it’s undeclared. Car had PPF fitted by Porsche at their cost.
Declared PPF since beginning of insurance.
Got rear ended and insurance covered PPF.
Got hit again couple years later. Now I am told it is an undeclared modification and replacing PPF is betterment because of wear and tear.
It is equivalent to saying we will repair your car but not paint it because paint wears and we don't want you to have better paint than before!!!
Also - PPF is latest self healing guaranteed for life (original owner) with no proof it "wears". Paint actually wears more than PPF for goodness sake!
I look forward to Ombudsman ruling noting that my insurer isn't even paying - i was hit by an enormous tractor
Well they can obviously but I doubt they will get far with that sentence.
Even if you don’t have anything in writing to prove it I also assume you have been in dialogue with their complaints dept prior to talking to the Ombudsman?
So I'm off to the Ombudsman...
Aviva state that I had the PPF installed at my cost and therefore is a modification I did not declare.
This is opposite of what I have written and said - I have requested call transcripts and quick search will find "PPF" or "paint protection film".
"Betterment" makes no sense and they have ignored my complaint in this regard.
I asked to pursue the third party on my own since they have done nothing for two months, and this is where the plot thickens...
Aviva is also the third party, so whilst the third party is liable, they won't even ask. Seemingly because they have to pay out regardless hence why they want to dismiss claim.
What is hilarious is that they have asked if i want to pursue the rest of my claim (PPF was cheapest part of claim) i need to make another claim!
Will report back what Ombudsmen say, but I can't see how Aviva expect to win this on their poor process alone, never mind the evidence is stacked against them.
Aviva state that I had the PPF installed at my cost and therefore is a modification I did not declare.
This is opposite of what I have written and said - I have requested call transcripts and quick search will find "PPF" or "paint protection film".
"Betterment" makes no sense and they have ignored my complaint in this regard.
I asked to pursue the third party on my own since they have done nothing for two months, and this is where the plot thickens...
Aviva is also the third party, so whilst the third party is liable, they won't even ask. Seemingly because they have to pay out regardless hence why they want to dismiss claim.
What is hilarious is that they have asked if i want to pursue the rest of my claim (PPF was cheapest part of claim) i need to make another claim!
Will report back what Ombudsmen say, but I can't see how Aviva expect to win this on their poor process alone, never mind the evidence is stacked against them.
I am engaging Xpel and others to explore this topic which seems newsworthy...
My bonnet bumper and wing are protected from damage by the PPF which healed itself too, but insurers see it as some sort of enemy!
I am told it is a bigger industry fight where the cost of repairs on cars are increasing and insurers fighting on every angle they can - I just think they've picked the wrong fight with PPF!
My bonnet bumper and wing are protected from damage by the PPF which healed itself too, but insurers see it as some sort of enemy!
I am told it is a bigger industry fight where the cost of repairs on cars are increasing and insurers fighting on every angle they can - I just think they've picked the wrong fight with PPF!
woollyjoe said:
So I'm off to the Ombudsman...
Aviva state that I had the PPF installed at my cost and therefore is a modification I did not declare.
This is opposite of what I have written and said - I have requested call transcripts and quick search will find "PPF" or "paint protection film".
"Betterment" makes no sense and they have ignored my complaint in this regard.
I asked to pursue the third party on my own since they have done nothing for two months, and this is where the plot thickens...
Aviva is also the third party, so whilst the third party is liable, they won't even ask. Seemingly because they have to pay out regardless hence why they want to dismiss claim.
What is hilarious is that they have asked if i want to pursue the rest of my claim (PPF was cheapest part of claim) i need to make another claim!
Will report back what Ombudsmen say, but I can't see how Aviva expect to win this on their poor process alone, never mind the evidence is stacked against them.
What a farce, good luck with it all.Aviva state that I had the PPF installed at my cost and therefore is a modification I did not declare.
This is opposite of what I have written and said - I have requested call transcripts and quick search will find "PPF" or "paint protection film".
"Betterment" makes no sense and they have ignored my complaint in this regard.
I asked to pursue the third party on my own since they have done nothing for two months, and this is where the plot thickens...
Aviva is also the third party, so whilst the third party is liable, they won't even ask. Seemingly because they have to pay out regardless hence why they want to dismiss claim.
What is hilarious is that they have asked if i want to pursue the rest of my claim (PPF was cheapest part of claim) i need to make another claim!
Will report back what Ombudsmen say, but I can't see how Aviva expect to win this on their poor process alone, never mind the evidence is stacked against them.
I'd worry that the call transcripts will be 'lost/deleted after x years'
Wonder if we're at the point we should record & archive all conversations we have with our insurers ourselves to try & nip issues like this in the bud ASAP.
DaveCWK said:
woollyjoe said:
So I'm off to the Ombudsman...
Aviva state that I had the PPF installed at my cost and therefore is a modification I did not declare.
This is opposite of what I have written and said - I have requested call transcripts and quick search will find "PPF" or "paint protection film".
"Betterment" makes no sense and they have ignored my complaint in this regard.
I asked to pursue the third party on my own since they have done nothing for two months, and this is where the plot thickens...
Aviva is also the third party, so whilst the third party is liable, they won't even ask. Seemingly because they have to pay out regardless hence why they want to dismiss claim.
What is hilarious is that they have asked if i want to pursue the rest of my claim (PPF was cheapest part of claim) i need to make another claim!
Will report back what Ombudsmen say, but I can't see how Aviva expect to win this on their poor process alone, never mind the evidence is stacked against them.
What a farce, good luck with it all.Aviva state that I had the PPF installed at my cost and therefore is a modification I did not declare.
This is opposite of what I have written and said - I have requested call transcripts and quick search will find "PPF" or "paint protection film".
"Betterment" makes no sense and they have ignored my complaint in this regard.
I asked to pursue the third party on my own since they have done nothing for two months, and this is where the plot thickens...
Aviva is also the third party, so whilst the third party is liable, they won't even ask. Seemingly because they have to pay out regardless hence why they want to dismiss claim.
What is hilarious is that they have asked if i want to pursue the rest of my claim (PPF was cheapest part of claim) i need to make another claim!
Will report back what Ombudsmen say, but I can't see how Aviva expect to win this on their poor process alone, never mind the evidence is stacked against them.
I'd worry that the call transcripts will be 'lost/deleted after x years'
Wonder if we're at the point we should record & archive all conversations we have with our insurers ourselves to try & nip issues like this in the bud ASAP.
woollyjoe said:
So I'm off to the Ombudsman...
Aviva state that I had the PPF installed at my cost and therefore is a modification I did not declare.
This is opposite of what I have written and said - I have requested call transcripts and quick search will find "PPF" or "paint protection film".
"Betterment" makes no sense and they have ignored my complaint in this regard.
I asked to pursue the third party on my own since they have done nothing for two months, and this is where the plot thickens...
Aviva is also the third party, so whilst the third party is liable, they won't even ask. Seemingly because they have to pay out regardless hence why they want to dismiss claim.
What is hilarious is that they have asked if i want to pursue the rest of my claim (PPF was cheapest part of claim) i need to make another claim!
Will report back what Ombudsmen say, but I can't see how Aviva expect to win this on their poor process alone, never mind the evidence is stacked against them.
When you say they ignored your complaint , was this separately made to their complaints dept or just as part of the conversation with whomever told you they had an issue ?Aviva state that I had the PPF installed at my cost and therefore is a modification I did not declare.
This is opposite of what I have written and said - I have requested call transcripts and quick search will find "PPF" or "paint protection film".
"Betterment" makes no sense and they have ignored my complaint in this regard.
I asked to pursue the third party on my own since they have done nothing for two months, and this is where the plot thickens...
Aviva is also the third party, so whilst the third party is liable, they won't even ask. Seemingly because they have to pay out regardless hence why they want to dismiss claim.
What is hilarious is that they have asked if i want to pursue the rest of my claim (PPF was cheapest part of claim) i need to make another claim!
Will report back what Ombudsmen say, but I can't see how Aviva expect to win this on their poor process alone, never mind the evidence is stacked against them.
The reason I ask is simply if their complaints dept has not yet got back to you then the Ombudsman won’t yet get involved.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff