Not declaring modifications to insurance companies
Discussion
onomatopoeia said:
I agree with you first sentence, but are you sure about "driving without insurance?" given that the insurer is legally prevented from refusing to pay out to thrid parties if a certificate has been issued.
I think the offence is actually "driving without valid insurance", or something similar. Certainly, when you hear the shocking statistics about how many drivers in the UK aren't insured, the huge majority have insurance, it's just not valid. ian_touring said:
Shirly the cheapest tyres of no name/no grip would be the greatest risk versus high grip top end compound?
Not necessarily, for the same reason that fitting upgraded brakes may result in a higher premium - the question is not "is the car safer with this modification", but "do the kinds of people who do this to their car tend to crash more often".kambites said:
onomatopoeia said:
I agree with you first sentence, but are you sure about "driving without insurance?" given that the insurer is legally prevented from refusing to pay out to thrid parties if a certificate has been issued.
I think the offence is actually "driving without valid insurance", or something similar. Certainly, when you hear the shocking statistics about how many drivers in the UK aren't insured, the huge majority have insurance, it's just not valid. MOT's really need to be tied more firmly in with insurance or TAX, its amazing how many people honestly just forget about MOT's as there is no reminder or demand you have your MOT done.
An insurer cannot avoid their liability to third parties because of the condition of the car, including the absence of a valid MOT. The driver is insured in that scenario.
See:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_1988005...
See:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_1988005...
Road Traffic Act 1988 said:
148 Avoidance of certain exceptions to policies or securities
(1) Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—
(a) the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or
(b) the operation of the security,
(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,
(b) the condition of the vehicle,
(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries,
(d) the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,
(e) the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,
(f) the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,
(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or
(h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the [1971 c. 10.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) above requires an insurer or the giver of a security to pay any sum in respect of the liability of any person otherwise than in or towards the discharge of that liability.
(4) Any sum paid by an insurer or the giver of a security in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy or security by virtue only of subsection (1) above is recoverable by the insurer or giver of the security from that person.
(5) A condition in a policy or security issued or given for the purposes of this Part of this Act providing—
(a) that no liability shall arise under the policy or security, or
(b) that any liability so arising shall cease,
in the event of some specified thing being done or omitted to be done after the happening of the event giving rise to a claim under the policy or security, shall be of no effect in connection with such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act.
(6) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to render void any provision in a policy or security requiring the person insured or secured to pay to the insurer or the giver of the security any sums which the latter may have become liable to pay under the policy or security and which have been applied to the satisfaction of the claims of third parties.
(7) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, a person issuing a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act shall be liable to indemnify the persons or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of those persons or classes of persons.
(1) Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—
(a) the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or
(b) the operation of the security,
(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,
(b) the condition of the vehicle,
(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries,
(d) the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,
(e) the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,
(f) the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,
(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or
(h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the [1971 c. 10.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) above requires an insurer or the giver of a security to pay any sum in respect of the liability of any person otherwise than in or towards the discharge of that liability.
(4) Any sum paid by an insurer or the giver of a security in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy or security by virtue only of subsection (1) above is recoverable by the insurer or giver of the security from that person.
(5) A condition in a policy or security issued or given for the purposes of this Part of this Act providing—
(a) that no liability shall arise under the policy or security, or
(b) that any liability so arising shall cease,
in the event of some specified thing being done or omitted to be done after the happening of the event giving rise to a claim under the policy or security, shall be of no effect in connection with such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act.
(6) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to render void any provision in a policy or security requiring the person insured or secured to pay to the insurer or the giver of the security any sums which the latter may have become liable to pay under the policy or security and which have been applied to the satisfaction of the claims of third parties.
(7) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, a person issuing a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act shall be liable to indemnify the persons or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of those persons or classes of persons.
Herman Toothrot said:
the car had no MOT which also invalidates it.
No it doesn't, the insurer cannot refuse to pay out to third parties based on the condition of the vehicle the insured person is driving and any clause in the insurance that puports to restrict the insurance on this basis is of no effect. Section 148 of the Road traffic act 1988 makes this clear.As kambites pointed out at the start of the topic, in these circumstances the insurer can recover what they pay out to third parties from the insured.
Kentish said:
How far do you go with mod declaration?
The insurance companies state anything not as per manufacturers spec.
That could include, batteries, filters, tyres, brake fluid, screen wash, spark plugs, plug leads, stereo, light bulbs, floor mats, wheels, exhaust, clutch components, etc.
I don't declare service items or high wear items like tyres or different brand of something like a clutch but maybe I should be?
My understanding is that if the Mods aren't visible to the average owner then you can plead ignorance on Mods applied before you bought it. If you have knowledge of vehicles or could be expected to then they are more likely to expect you to report the mods, so being a mechanic, doing home repairs or being in the owners club they expect greater diligence in noticing and reporting mods.The insurance companies state anything not as per manufacturers spec.
That could include, batteries, filters, tyres, brake fluid, screen wash, spark plugs, plug leads, stereo, light bulbs, floor mats, wheels, exhaust, clutch components, etc.
I don't declare service items or high wear items like tyres or different brand of something like a clutch but maybe I should be?
This is all based on owning 4/5th hand cars where I have no idea what is factory spec after all the car could have been a dealer special.
Deliberately not notifying of mods is a foolish idea, as the insurers can and will tear you apart if and when they find out, don't forget they share info so may know the car is modified even if you say it's standard.
Chapppers said:
KaraK said:
Chapppers said:
Herman Toothrot said:
Chapppers said:
I Predict: Don't do it, be gone with you satan! You're the reason ALL BAD THINGS HAPPEN
However, i'd like to know what really happens from someone who's actually experienced it.
Have you tried Greenlight though? They're usually quite good on modifications.
I read a thread once by a person with a modifed but un-declared car who wrote it off. Story basically went along the lines of "the car had un-declared modifications, they would have made £XXX difference to your premium with this in mind we will pay out £XXXX for the car minus £XXX that you should have paid us in the first place". That was that. There wasn't a 3rd party involved though.However, i'd like to know what really happens from someone who's actually experienced it.
Have you tried Greenlight though? They're usually quite good on modifications.
kambites said:
Herman Toothrot said:
MOT's really need to be tied more firmly in with insurance or TAX, its amazing how many people honestly just forget about MOT's as there is no reminder or demand you have your MOT done.
Done it myself for a couple of weeks once. I'm sure you could plead ignorance on an engine remap if you purchased the car used.
Driving a vehicle with an additional 40 ish BHP to someone whos never owned that type of car before,surely you could state that the mod was carried out by any of the previous owners and you just imagined it was a standard vehicle.
With an invisible mod like a remap no insurance company could prove it was there or that you added it.
Driving a vehicle with an additional 40 ish BHP to someone whos never owned that type of car before,surely you could state that the mod was carried out by any of the previous owners and you just imagined it was a standard vehicle.
With an invisible mod like a remap no insurance company could prove it was there or that you added it.
jbi said:
Defcon5 said:
EK993 said:
You have to declare any modifications to the vehicle that have taken place after it leaves the factory.
Tyres?Can't remember ever telling and insurer about a change in tyres though unless it was completely different size
saaby93 said:
^^anyone else think this is the reason they dont send out reminders for MOTs
unlike
tax
insurance
rac
gas
electric
...
They give us a sticker on the back of our MoT to remind us, we just need to apply it to our windscreens. unlike
tax
insurance
rac
gas
electric
...
However, if we don't put the sticker on our windscreen, it's a case of "the same as it ever was" as you allude to. And I personally don't want an MoT Reminder sticker on my windscreen, so it stays on the MoT.
I have a vague idea when the family's cars' MoTs are due, also their Insurance and Tax - only got three cars to feed and water though!
If in doubt there are always the cars' paper records in a simple filing system. Or the kitchen calendar and a pen. Or our diaries and a pen.Not failsafe, admittedly, but a start
.The insurance company are only going to be worried if there's a conscious effort to defraud. For example a non-standard (but OEM spec and TUV approved) battery is going to be fine, as you aren't intending to change the way the vehicle works. Ditto using rudget tyres. But if you fit 20" alloys to a corsa you aren't doing it with the purpose of keeping the car in a standard condition. You want it to ride like a race car. That's a mod which would need to be declared.
From personal experience I would highly recommend declaring all modifications, it's definitely not worth the worry or the trouble if you get caught.
I was very lucky and after a few months I ended up with a caution. I now insure my car fully declared even though it cots more then 3 times as much, it's such a good feeling not to be nervous every time I see a police car though.
If you can't afford proper insurance then I would strongly advise considering either a standard car or a cheaper modified car.
I was very lucky and after a few months I ended up with a caution. I now insure my car fully declared even though it cots more then 3 times as much, it's such a good feeling not to be nervous every time I see a police car though.
If you can't afford proper insurance then I would strongly advise considering either a standard car or a cheaper modified car.
davepoth said:
The insurance company are only going to be worried if there's a conscious effort to defraud. For example a non-standard (but OEM spec and TUV approved) battery is going to be fine, as you aren't intending to change the way the vehicle works. Ditto using rudget tyres. But if you fit 20" alloys to a corsa you aren't doing it with the purpose of keeping the car in a standard condition. You want it to ride like a race car. That's a mod which would need to be declared.
the trouble is no-one knows come the claim where the insurance co are going to draw the line.There used to be no issue with fitting some hella rally fog lights to your Ford Escort, it didnt mean you were oing to rally it, it just meant...;)
Fitting 20" wheels doesnt mean you're going to drive your corsa like a race car, it might indicate you enjoy tarting up your car, take great care in it, and are a lower risk. Or not.
saaby93 said:
Fitting 20" wheels doesnt mean you're going to drive your corsa like a race car, it might indicate you enjoy tarting up your car, take great care in it, and are a lower risk. Or not.
So they look at the statistics and see whether similar people who fit 20 inch alloys to Corsas have a worse than normal claims record...They don't know or care about the mechanisms by which a change in a bit of information changes the likelihood of a claim - there's no logic involved, no risk assessment, just statistics.
If you want a modified car - then do what I do:
Simply draw up a table of modifications and submit that with your application for an insurance quote. (Don't use 'price comparison' websites as clearly this won't work.) Instead call some brokers and get them to allow you to fax or email your list over and wait for them to come back to you with a price.
Cosmetic mods may well add little/nothing to a policy. With some insurers even a perfomance enhancing mod may add nothing to the policy. (I've already got some mods on my car but adding a 3inch cat back and 3 point harnesses didn't add anything.) So your price may or may not change that much, but at least you're not giving them a green light to shaft you later on.
I think it's really daft when people say "Do I need to declare XYZ?". Just phone them up and declare it. If it really is a 'minor' thing, then they won't charge you for it. So just make a list and send it over. It's really not hard if you use a bit of common sense.
Simply draw up a table of modifications and submit that with your application for an insurance quote. (Don't use 'price comparison' websites as clearly this won't work.) Instead call some brokers and get them to allow you to fax or email your list over and wait for them to come back to you with a price.
Cosmetic mods may well add little/nothing to a policy. With some insurers even a perfomance enhancing mod may add nothing to the policy. (I've already got some mods on my car but adding a 3inch cat back and 3 point harnesses didn't add anything.) So your price may or may not change that much, but at least you're not giving them a green light to shaft you later on.
I think it's really daft when people say "Do I need to declare XYZ?". Just phone them up and declare it. If it really is a 'minor' thing, then they won't charge you for it. So just make a list and send it over. It's really not hard if you use a bit of common sense.
otolith said:
saaby93 said:
Fitting 20" wheels doesnt mean you're going to drive your corsa like a race car, it might indicate you enjoy tarting up your car, take great care in it, and are a lower risk. Or not.
So they look at the statistics and see whether similar people who fit 20 inch alloys to Corsas have a worse than normal claims record...They don't know or care about the mechanisms by which a change in a bit of information changes the likelihood of a claim - there's no logic involved, no risk assessment, just statistics.
What happens after an accident when the assessor comes up to you and says, that's a non-standard air filter no payout. But I didnt know?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff