BMW warranty voided due to immobiliser

[NMNeil]

CarCrazyDad said:

Why would you even tell them?

Just seems like opening a can of worms for no reason.


100% the insurance ombudsman would side with you/OP on this.

An alarm system isn't a modification.

To fit the alarm you have to 'modify' the cars wiring, by cutting it or adding wire piercing connectors.

[CarCrazyDad]

nickfrog said:

CarCrazyDad said:

Why would you even tell them?

Just seems like opening a can of worms for no reason.


100% the insurance ombudsman would side with you/OP on this.

An alarm system isn't a modification.

Certainly if your turbo blew up they could not use thr fact it had an alarm as an excuse

They wouldn't even need to repudiate the claim on the turbo because there wouldn't even be a valid policy in place by then. Allianz T&Cs says that the policy is not valid if you modify the car, and one can reasonably perceive an alarm as a mod. It doesn't even say that claims won't be valid, as it doesn't need to.
I think it's a little harsh but I can see where they are coming from as the cost of investigating every mod was deemed too high.

I have no idea what the FOS would say though. No one knows for sure until it is tested. But perhaps it has been tested, I haven't seen any jurisprudence yet.

Edited by nickfrog on Sunday 14th November 18:55

Completely disagree

A mod is a modification usually designed to "improve"

A remap
Lowering springs
Exhaust system etc


In exactly the same way that if you lowered your car and your turbo blew up the warranty would not be voided.

I'm 99% sure this has already been proven in general car insurance when someone has had an accident and their insurance has tried to not pay out due to a K&N panel filter which is argued as a serviceable part, or an alarm system, or some other sort of wheels which belong to the same model.

I have some second hand experience in this as my son has a modified M140i under an insured warranty and he has one of those "ghost immobilisers" as well as having some "Motec springs" and he's had several things including a rear driveshaft replaced under his insured warranty with no quibbles.

An alarm is not a modification in the sense of the word. You don't "modify your house" if you put a new alarm system in.

[InitialDave]

They don't really think it's a modification.

They class it as a modification so they can deny claims.

[MarkwG]

CarCrazyDad said:

nickfrog said:

CarCrazyDad said:

Why would you even tell them?

Just seems like opening a can of worms for no reason.


100% the insurance ombudsman would side with you/OP on this.

An alarm system isn't a modification.

Certainly if your turbo blew up they could not use thr fact it had an alarm as an excuse

They wouldn't even need to repudiate the claim on the turbo because there wouldn't even be a valid policy in place by then. Allianz T&Cs says that the policy is not valid if you modify the car, and one can reasonably perceive an alarm as a mod. It doesn't even say that claims won't be valid, as it doesn't need to.
I think it's a little harsh but I can see where they are coming from as the cost of investigating every mod was deemed too high. The people who write the policy determine what a modification is, it

I have no idea what the FOS would say though. No one knows for sure until it is tested. But perhaps it has been tested, I haven't seen any jurisprudence yet.

Edited by nickfrog on Sunday 14th November 18:55

Completely disagree

A mod is a modification usually designed to "improve"

A remap
Lowering springs
Exhaust system etc


In exactly the same way that if you lowered your car and your turbo blew up the warranty would not be voided.

I'm 99% sure this has already been proven in general car insurance when someone has had an accident and their insurance has tried to not pay out due to a K&N panel filter which is argued as a serviceable part, or an alarm system, or some other sort of wheels which belong to the same model.

I have some second hand experience in this as my son has a modified M140i under an insured warranty and he has one of those "ghost immobilisers" as well as having some "Motec springs" and he's had several things including a rear driveshaft replaced under his insured warranty with no quibbles.

An alarm is not a modification in the sense of the word. You don't "modify your house" if you put a new alarm system in.

General car insurance is not the same as a warranty insurance policy. It's also not the same as adding a house alarm to a house, & that affecting general house buildings & contents policy. A warranty insurance policy covers the systems of the car against early failure: anything that influences the wiring, an alarm, an immobiliser or an audio system that taps into the electronics of the car may affect whether they feel the integrity of the car has been adversely affected, & may affect whether they want to warranty it, or not. Different insurers may take a different view, but it's not a foregone conclusion that they'll continue to cover, or want to in the first place.

A K&N panel filter may not affect a policy, because the filter housing would need to be opened to see it - that's not saying its acceptable not to declare it, just that post accident it may not be something the insurance assessor is looking for. A cone filter most certainly would be obvious, & would likely void the policy, if it hasn't been declared. I'd be interested in any evidence that shows otherwise.

[sonnenschein3000]

Which Ombudsman would be more relevant in terms of issues with extended warranty? The Motor Ombudsman or the Financial Ombudsman?

[CarCrazyDad]

sonnenschein3000 said:

Which Ombudsman would be more relevant in terms of issues with extended warranty? The Motor Ombudsman or the Financial Ombudsman?

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-can-help/insurance

[sonnenschein3000]

CarCrazyDad said:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/c...

Thanks

[MikeM6]

CarCrazyDad said:

Completely disagree

A mod is a modification usually designed to "improve"

A remap
Lowering springs
Exhaust system etc


In exactly the same way that if you lowered your car and your turbo blew up the warranty would not be voided.

I'm 99% sure this has already been proven in general car insurance when someone has had an accident and their insurance has tried to not pay out due to a K&N panel filter which is argued as a serviceable part, or an alarm system, or some other sort of wheels which belong to the same model.

I have some second hand experience in this as my son has a modified M140i under an insured warranty and he has one of those "ghost immobilisers" as well as having some "Motec springs" and he's had several things including a rear driveshaft replaced under his insured warranty with no quibbles.

An alarm is not a modification in the sense of the word. You don't "modify your house" if you put a new alarm system in.

A modification is anything that deviates from the original specification of the vehicle, or in other words part of the vehicle has been changed. The purpose of that is irrelevant. Remember, it is not a warranty in the traditional sense, it is an insurance policy. So it doesn't matter if the the modification is related to the fault like it would do in the original manufacturer warranty, if the car isn't as per original spec they say they would not offer an insurance product on it, and so can retrospectively void it if they later find out it was modified.

Your son's car would almost certainly have it's warranty voided if they inspected it, which they would do if the claim was above a certain value. They likely would not quibble smallish claims like driveshafts, but if he needs a new engine or gearbox it will be voided as he breached the contract.

[nickfrog]

CarCrazyDad said:

Completely disagree

A mod is a modification usually designed to "improve"

A remap
Lowering springs
Exhaust system etc


In exactly the same way that if you lowered your car and your turbo blew up the warranty would not be voided.

I'm 99% sure this has already been proven in general car insurance when someone has had an accident and their insurance has tried to not pay out due to a K&N panel filter which is argued as a serviceable part, or an alarm system, or some other sort of wheels which belong to the same model.

I have some second hand experience in this as my son has a modified M140i under an insured warranty and he has one of those "ghost immobilisers" as well as having some "Motec springs" and he's had several things including a rear driveshaft replaced under his insured warranty with no quibbles.

An alarm is not a modification in the sense of the word. You don't "modify your house" if you put a new alarm system in.

I have the same product on my car too. The policy wording is quite clear. They won't even assess the claim past the validation step, they'll simply refund your premium as if the policy had never existed, because they're simply not interested in selling it to anyone who modify their car in a any way, whether this has an impact on a failed part or not, which is their prerogative. They make this a condition for anyone simply being allowed to enter into the contract, even at the screening stage prior to buying (where if you don't tick the box declaring the car is not modified, you can't progress the transaction) which is quite different to a motor policy where you can declare a mod and pay a premium for it. Or has you point out, if the modification has no impact on the outcome of an accident.

This is not to say that some claims are not settled as the dealer ultimately has delegated authority, at least up to a certain value.

Now, it is possible that the FOS might, like you, consider that an alarm fitted to a car requiring the wiring loom to be altered is not a modification but AFAIK this hasn't been tested unless of course you have seen jurisprudence on this.
[/footnote]

Edited by nickfrog on Monday 15th November 08:07

[Whatsmyname]

BMW are massively anal with the warranty they provide.

When my car went in for an issue with the power steering they (luckily) pulled me to one side and asked if I’d modified the car which I had but only by using a USB stick to activate / customise all the iDrive options without having to pay. They found this as part of a standard map update they tried to install.

They carried out the work but advised me that next time it comes for a service / claim to have everything back as standard or they would refuse to do anything.

[MarkwG]

Whatsmyname said:

BMW are massively anal with the warranty they provide.

When my car went in for an issue with the power steering they (luckily) pulled me to one side and asked if I’d modified the car which I had but only by using a USB stick to activate / customise all the iDrive options without having to pay. They found this as part of a standard map update they tried to install.

They carried out the work but advised me that next time it comes for a service / claim to have everything back as standard or they would refuse to do anything.

That sounds like the dealer working on your behalf, rather than BMW or the warranty company, but, yes, that would be the safest option. I suspect you'd get a similar reaction from other manufacturers, although they perhaps aren't as exposed as BMWs tend to be very popular for modifications to newish cars, so aren't as effective at monitoring.

Edited by MarkwG on Monday 15th November 17:59

[Whatsmyname]

Yes the guy doing the work saved me a big headache. Could have easily gone the other way if he was a jobsworth.

Edited by Whatsmyname on Monday 15th November 17:50

[TwighlightM4]

R35 Boxer said:

Update

Hi, did you manage to resolve your case with the warranty company. I'm in exactly the same situation looking for advice. Warranty voided due to Ghost immobiliser, I've paid my £250 access under warranty and now the dealer is demanding full payment for the work carried out. Looking for some advice on how to persue this.

[Pupp]

When I bought my new (then) M2C in June 20 and was looking for insurance, BMWs own official policy required an aftermarket (make not specified) tracker as a condition of writing the cover…

Not a Ghost, obviously, but surely a modification on the same logic

[MarkwG]

Pupp said:

When I bought my new (then) M2C in June 20 and was looking for insurance, BMWs own official policy required an aftermarket (make not specified) tracker as a condition of writing the cover…

Not a Ghost, obviously, but surely a modification on the same logic

The BMW new car warranty & the dealer used car insured warranty are not the same thing & therefore have different requirements & exclusions.

[MikeM6]

Pupp said:

When I bought my new (then) M2C in June 20 and was looking for insurance, BMWs own official policy required an aftermarket (make not specified) tracker as a condition of writing the cover…

Not a Ghost, obviously, but surely a modification on the same logic

Presumably that would have been approved and fitted by BMW through one of their dealers though?

[RUSSELLM]

Pupp said:

When I bought my new (then) M2C in June 20 and was looking for insurance, BMWs own official policy required an aftermarket (make not specified) tracker as a condition of writing the cover…

Not a Ghost, obviously, but surely a modification on the same logic

Have you gone with Trafficmaster Trackstar, by any chance ?

[Pupp]

MikeM6 said:

Pupp said:

When I bought my new (then) M2C in June 20 and was looking for insurance, BMWs own official policy required an aftermarket (make not specified) tracker as a condition of writing the cover…

Not a Ghost, obviously, but surely a modification on the same logic

Presumably that would have been approved and fitted by BMW through one of their dealers though?

The discussion never got that far; it wasn’t acceptable to me that a manufacturer was requiring 3rd party security add-ons to one of its products before it would insure.

[MikeM6]

Pupp said:

The discussion never got that far; it wasn’t acceptable to me that a manufacturer was requiring 3rd party security add-ons to one of its products before it would insure.

Fair enough, I'd be inclined to agree, but it does deal with the issue of it being a modification though. The insured warranty would not have an issue with a BMW approved and dealer fit tracker (provided it was declared in advance and agreed), but it would with a Ghost immobiliser.

[RUSSELLM]

Pupp said:

MikeM6 said:

Pupp said:

When I bought my new (then) M2C in June 20 and was looking for insurance, BMWs own official policy required an aftermarket (make not specified) tracker as a condition of writing the cover…

Not a Ghost, obviously, but surely a modification on the same logic

Presumably that would have been approved and fitted by BMW through one of their dealers though?

The discussion never got that far; it wasn’t acceptable to me that a manufacturer was requiring 3rd party security add-ons to one of its products before it would insure.

For me, as a sparky, there’s quite a difference between the two modifications.

The tracker, when done properly, could use a spare fuse holder in the fuse box, a new fuse, and you’re done. An internal fault in the tracker, and at worse, you’re blowing your new fuse.

The ghost requires the same, but with the add on, of splicing into the can. You put a dead short down the can, and you’ve got a dead car. As it happens, apart from killing the car, I’ve never seen a short terminally execute modules, but then I don’t work on BMW. But I have seen what a dead short does something as simple as a Lin, and I’ve seen that kill body modules.