Armageddon for modified car owners

Armageddon for modified car owners

Author
Discussion

Bluebottle

3,498 posts

239 months

Friday 21st September 2012
quotequote all
Quietlybonkers said:
we all get asked if we have modified the car in any way when we renew the insurance, but nobody says "It came on Michelins, but I have changed to Toyos" or whatever, do they?...
I give my insurance company a copy of my full spec, service history record and photographs of everything...its easier that way as very little is original and they can't complain about wrong tyres, not knowing something or whatever,cos they have had photos of everything.

Goaty Bill

1,779 posts

150 months

Friday 21st September 2012
quotequote all
Quietlybonkers said:
Really? No third party brake pads, no changes of shocks, no rubber bits that aren't OEM? I'd be surprised. My TVR repairer gets his CV gaiters, for example, wherever he can find parts of suitable quality that fit, rather than sourcing everything from a major player. And I am told that windscreens are getting very hard to find now.

My biggest concern is both this and the insurance position - we all get asked if we have modified the car in any way when we renew the insurance, but nobody says "It came on Michelins, but I have changed to Toyos" or whatever, do they? Mine has spent the summer on non-standard 17 inch wheels and Yokohamas that frankly were a nightmare on standing water, but I didn't tell the insurers. Instead I only took it out in the dry. The braking and cornering were much, much better. But the time I got caught out by a sudden downpour I did lose the back end for half a second on a huge puddle......at 20 mph. What if I had hit something/someone? Insurance up the spout? Police on my case? Driving an illegal vehicle?
I can confirm that any required replacement parts have been purchased from one of three TVR 'Dealers' since new. Mole Valley (until they quit as a registered dealer, as I recall it, some short time before the final demise), Racing Green and TVR Power.

The exceptions would be; a single rubber radiator hose no longer available with a TVR part number, and the araldite I used to stick a couple of bits back on.
Sadly, not everything on the car has a TVR part number on it, but then much of it didn't when new rotate
Substantively the car has been maintained to "comply with characteristics at the time of first registration."

As to any 'legality' and insurance issues, I referred to such in a post in the Chimaera forum earlier today.
If what you mention would be an issue with your insurer, then I would respectfully suggest a new insurer. I know for a fact I would have no such issues with mine. (Not ignoring the possibility that your example could simply be that, an example)
That piece of mind does come at a slightly higher price than many people pay, but it's a long way from a bank breaker, (and probably less money than a pair of Toyo T1Rs).

As to the original topic, lets just hope that this (referred to earlier in the thread) is more the real situation; http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/press-reports-...

Quietlybonkers

20,904 posts

143 months

Friday 21st September 2012
quotequote all
Thanks Bill - I was a bit worried, I must admit, and will need to have a chat with Mannings to make sure whether mine, with non OEM dampers, wheels and tyres causes them any issues. I need to call them anyway - I have done over 3000 of the 5000 annual miles, since May! Just having too much fun I guess.

chatter

2 posts

138 months

Sunday 23rd September 2012
quotequote all
theseoldcars said:
xr287 said:
Define modified? I have a non standard £350 stainless steel exhaust because it would have cost 2 or 3 times that for a steel one from Renault that would rust away again.
I think you might be OK in that instance. For example, with regards to historics, the proposal states (paraphrasing a bit here):

"maintained by use of repro replacement parts / not sustained any change in the technical characteristics or appearance"

I suspect that you could probably get away with a stainless exhaust, that's similar to the OEM item, as being a "reproduction" part.

Lots of question marks and clarification needed though with this "proposal".
As others have said, this is all new, but, reading your post made me think:

I have a friend in the trade who regularly discusses the issues with regards how often owners of new or otherwise standard cars are having non OEM parts fitted, either to their knowledge or not, allegedly to either satisfy the profit margins of insurance companies, garages, or simply to save owners money.

Now, the example here of an exhaust made from alternative materials, well technical characteristics may well be maintained (performance)?

However, how many 'standard' cars are repaired and now driving around with cheap panels made from non-OEM spec materials/metals?

Surely body parts, if not OEM spec, may alter the crumple/crash 'technical characteristics' of a vehicle in a crash? So therefore, surely insurance companies and garages will be called to ensure repairs are also done to the identical technical spec - wonder whether that will go down well?

chatter

2 posts

138 months

Sunday 23rd September 2012
quotequote all
theseoldcars said:
[url

"... introduce a definition for a roadworthiness test that components of the vehicle must comply with characteristics at the time of first registration. This may prevent most modifications to vehicles without further approval of the vehicle. (this will apply to many components and to all types of vehicle)"


Edited by theseoldcars on Tuesday 21st August 22:28
Has anyone else wondered whether exporting, then re-importing a vehicle may be an option?

I mean, once the DVLA have scrubbed off your initial reg details (after 'exporting' to a convenient country - on paper at least) then surely you can 'import' onto a 'new' registration, and henceforth that would be it's first registration, so all existing modifications present at time of 'first' registration, would be held as 'standard'?

Can that be done - anyone know?

b0rk

2,289 posts

145 months

Monday 24th September 2012
quotequote all
Export > Import could be done but what country would you pick?
Continental Europe would require the headlights modifying for right dipping. Ireland requires the speedometer to display km's.
Then to avoid a IVA on re-import you'd have to technically keep the car in a type approved state.

Quietlybonkers

20,904 posts

143 months

Monday 24th September 2012
quotequote all
Goaty Bill said:
As to the original topic, lets just hope that this (referred to earlier in the thread) is more the real situation; http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/press-reports-...
This does seem more sane - that the existing MOT test is all we need to pass.

Goaty Bill

1,779 posts

150 months

Monday 24th September 2012
quotequote all
Quietlybonkers said:
Thanks Bill - I was a bit worried, I must admit, and will need to have a chat with Mannings to make sure whether mine, with non OEM dampers, wheels and tyres causes them any issues. I need to call them anyway - I have done over 3000 of the 5000 annual miles, since May! Just having too much fun I guess.
Given current legislation, I would suppose that any replacement parts offered by 'official' TVR parts and services providers would have to be, unless marked or sold otherwise, be considered acceptable replacements.
After all, if the Official dealer offers a certain tyre, specifically naming your make and model (example tyres from RG), then how can they not be 'correct'? And what reasonable argument could an insurer make against your using that make and model of tyre?
What should worry someone, under current legislation and considering the insurance in isolation, would be finding that your insurer was of the type that might actually have a problem with this.

Certainly you would have cause to be concerned then.
I know nothing of Mannings personally, but they do seem to be quite widely used in the TVR community, and so I would doubt the 'tyres thing' could be much of an issue, especially if they are informed.
As to your enthusiastic use of your car, potentially above and beyond the agreed mileage; you should have known better biggrin



Quietlybonkers

20,904 posts

143 months

Monday 24th September 2012
quotequote all
Goaty Bill said:
As to your enthusiastic use of your car, potentially above and beyond the agreed mileage; you should have known better biggrin
While I do polish it eek, unlike any other car I have ever owned, I am not one of the polishing brigade, nor one of the modifying brigade (too scared of changing one thing and messing up 6 others), so am just part of the driving it, ooh this is fun, brigade!

T0nup

683 posts

199 months

Tuesday 2nd October 2012
quotequote all
Anyone see of hear anything from the EU committee meeting that took place yesterday discussing the EU 'proposal' and the response from interested parties?

T0nup

683 posts

199 months

Wednesday 3rd October 2012
quotequote all
Didn't think so.

1960Zody

156 posts

210 months

Wednesday 3rd October 2012
quotequote all

Quietlybonkers

20,904 posts

143 months

Wednesday 3rd October 2012
quotequote all
1960Zody said:
If I read this correctly, the guy with the 1929 Humber, the 1905 Rolls Royce, or any Morgan whatsoever, will have no problems. That category is well catered for in these pronouncements.

The category that does concern me is the guy with the TVR, who spends thousands of pounds increasing the engine from 4 litres and 240bhp to 5.4 litres and 420 bhp, fitting a supercharger, improving the brakes, suspension etc etc. He may well be able to pass the MOT test, so long as he doesn't remove the catalytic converters, but does that make his car safe, and will it comply with the statement that the mods shouldn't increase its impact on the environment or change the characteristics of the car, especially its safety? Not many TVR owners add an extra 150-200 bhp as a safety improvement.....laugh The car may well drive like a complete scary dog, but that isn't tested by the current MOT test. So what test are they suggesting?

Quoting the text:

"It is still possible to modify vehicles or use non-original replacement parts as long as the safety and environmental requirements applicable at the time of approval are still met. Modifications should not reduce a vehicles road safety or its environmental performance, nor does it mean the owners of older vehicles cannot make modifications to a car, however if for example they choose to put a modern engine into a vehicle from say the 1950’s , with the additional power this implies then the commission considers the safety of such vehicles should be guaranteed by regular tests.”

dartagnan88

1 posts

146 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
there is absolutely no way they can enforce this they cannot find out about remaps, also a stainless exhaust is not a modification nor is a performance air filter all you have to tell the tester is the car was starving itself of fuel and these were needed to keep it going(or make up some other b/s to the same effect they may be able to stop lowering or body modifications but lets be honest its all about stock look anyway!

Bluebottle

3,498 posts

239 months

Thursday 4th October 2012
quotequote all
dartagnan88 said:
there is absolutely no way they can enforce this they cannot find out about remaps, also a stainless exhaust is not a modification nor is a performance air filter all you have to tell the tester is the car was starving itself of fuel and these were needed to keep it going(or make up some other b/s to the same effect they may be able to stop lowering or body modifications but lets be honest its all about stock look anyway!
Yeah my car was overfuelling Sooo badly i HAD to stick a blower on it to lean it out a bit cool

Pesty

42,655 posts

255 months

Sunday 28th October 2012
quotequote all
Rich G said:
No - in a nutshell it's that you will not be able to MoT any car that is not presented in the form that it was when it was first registered, be that 2012, 2002, 1992, 1972, 1932 or 1902. If you can't MoT it then you can't use it legally on the road.
Wait what?

my car has none original wheels,polly bushes.
so are we saying my car would fail an MOT?

MG CHRIS

9,077 posts

166 months

Sunday 28th October 2012
quotequote all
Ignore him a lot of rubbish being said about this proposal it's still a proposal not law and can't be inforced so don't worry about it.

mattikake

5,057 posts

198 months

Monday 18th February 2013
quotequote all
Holy cr@p! Just stumbled upon this. What a terrifying prospect!

To think of all the £millions of business around alloys, paintjobs, bodykits, engine performance, handling, decals, furry dice... all for another "tax".

I so hate the EU. Voting UKIP doesn't seem to offer enough hope any more. frown

I wonder when the EU will start proposing the idea of taxing you for modifying your house, your garden, your hair, your clothes...

nickfrog

20,872 posts

216 months

Wednesday 20th February 2013
quotequote all
Yes let's leave the EU. And take the risk of a extending the current economic situation by another 10 years for the sake of a few who genuinely think their road car needs to be as low as possible to be faster and look cool innit.

mattikake

5,057 posts

198 months

Wednesday 20th February 2013
quotequote all
Hmm... I guess the EU has nothing to do with the £5bn fees, 2million immigrants taking 2million jobs, 270,000 immigrants on benefits (roughly £1bn on JSA alone and a further £1bn in housing benefit + 2 million british unemployed @ £32bn in basic benefits), stressing out the NHS, lowering our standard of living... etc. etc.

But anyway, I thought this was supposed to be a democracy where we elect our leaders to run our country, not to have the EU dictatorially set policy for us.

All for what? Apparent business trade benefits.

Riiiight.