Undeclared 'Modifications' - car insurance

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

"Accessories

Parts or products specifically designed to be fitted to your vehicle. We may treat some accessories as modifications, so please tell us about any alterations to your vehicle."

That's the only clause in mine. Nothing on optional extras at all, but I have declared the tow bar as an accessory. (They didn't want to know).
I didn't mention the car mats, now I come to think about it though. Or the touch up paint in the glove locker.
(But both are listed as accessories in the brochure)

You're looking at the wrong piece of information there. That is from a policy wording. What you need to look at is the question asked at quotation re: modifications/extras.

rudekid48

The_Maestro wrote: »

This greatly benefits people who have massively modified their cars and had an accident/loss. You can increase a car's value by ~50% by specifiying options - possibly 10s of thousands of pounds and if you had an insurance write off you would only have to pay the price of the increased premium. In my case the increases to the premium and excess are far higher than the agreed 2nd hand value of the optional extras. If true, what you are saying encourages people to obtain insurance cover for a vehicle at the lowest possible amount with minimal disclosure and then only disclosing in the event of an accident (if its noticed and they are unluckly). I think I may de-reg my car with the DVLA and drive on full liability without insurance or tax since this legislative nonsense is just a scam.

Instead of spouting crap like this, why not just post which Insurer it is and who you bought the policy through, then we can all look at the questions that they ask about modifications and what their policy wording says. That way we can all see if you have a reasonable cause to be upset or (more likely judging by your posts so far), you didn't read the question properly and caused this situation yourself.

Go on, post the details and let's see if it's them or you.

raskazz

The_Maestro wrote: »

This greatly benefits people who have massively modified their cars and had an accident/loss. You can increase a car's value by ~50% by specifiying options - possibly 10s of thousands of pounds and if you had an insurance write off you would only have to pay the price of the increased premium.

You clearly ignored this part of my post which you quoted: "as the non-disclosure was inadvertent"

Have you actually read the links I posted earlier on to the FOS's guidance on the matter? If so, you clearly didn't understand the content.

In cases where the car has been heavily modified/added to the insurer will consider two things:

1) As the car had been heavily modified/added to and the changes were not disclosed it is almost certainly the case (and it would be reasonable to assume) that the policyholder's non-disclosure was due to deliberate fraud or reckless non-disclosure. In such cases the insurer is entitled to void the policy and thus reject the claim.

2) Secondly, even if the non-disclosure was not due to fraud or reckless non-disclosure, chances are that in any case the insurer would not have offered any cover at all had it known about the changes. Then it may reject the claim even if the non-disclosure was inadvertent. Your non-disclosure was inadvertent but the changes were acceptable under the insurer's underwriting criteria, albeit at a higher premium and excess.

The_Maestro wrote: »

In my case the increases to the premium and excess are far higher than the agreed 2nd hand value of the optional extras.

Again, this is not relevant. The policy covers third party liability in addition to material damage or theft to the car. As modifications affect the risk of third party liability as well as the risk of theft/damage, a simplistic comparison of the premium to the cost of the parts is not relevant. Especially as the increase in the theft risk is to the whole car, not just the parts added.

The_Maestro wrote: »

If true, what you are saying encourages people to obtain insurance cover for a vehicle at the lowest possible amount with minimal disclosure and then only disclosing in the event of an accident (if its noticed and they are unluckly).

Well, what you have incorrectly assumed is not true, so nothing to worry about there.

The_Maestro wrote: »

I think I may de-reg my car with the DVLA and drive on full liability without insurance or tax since this legislative nonsense is just a scam.

You are truly a genius. :T

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

You're looking at the wrong piece of information there. That is from a policy wording. What you need to look at is the question asked at quotation re: modifications/extras.

Maybe, but if that is the only use, or possible definition using the word modification on their website, or any document sent to me, I'll go with that.
Only wording on the quote page is

"The vehicle has not been modified or altered in any way (including wheels, suspension, bodywork and engine)."

Then a link that leads to the policy wording. So factory spec of a vechicle as it came from the dealer isn't a modification or alteration to the vechicle they quoted from the number plate I supplied.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

Maybe, but if that is the only use, or possible definition using the word modification on their website, or any document sent to me, I'll go with that.

Well, you would be a fool to "go with that", because (as confirmed by the FOS guidance), what matters is the question asked at quotation/inception.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

Only wording on the quote page is

"The vehicle has not been modified or altered in any way (including wheels, suspension, bodywork and engine)."

Then a link that leads to the policy wording. So factory spec of a vechicle as it came from the dealer isn't a modification or alteration to the vechicle they quoted from the number plate I supplied.

So if factory options have been added, you don't think that they are alterations from the standard spec? The question as written does not limit the required information to alterations after manufacture. Cannot be certain how the FOS would interpret it though.

Not sure why anyone would want to try to be clever with things like this. Why not disclose everything and be assured that non-disclosure will never interrupt the course of any potential claim you make?

magpiecottage

The FOS guidance DOES say that "innocent" non-disclosure should not prevent a claim being paid in full.

Given that most price comparison websites ask for the registration number and then tell you what the car is, rather than the other way round, I think an insurer would be hard pressed to persuade the FOS that you ought to have realised that the metallic paint was non-standard - especially if it was the norm for that model and/or you bought it second hand.

On the other hand, there is a principle in insurance known as "utmost good faith", which says you should disclose something it is reasonable to suppose an insurer might wish to know, even if they don't specifically ask about it. Alloy wheels come under that.

Arguably a tow bar does because if whatever you are towing hits something then the insurer will have to pay out. Generally they are not worried (boy racers do not normally go caravanning) but I disclose it.

There is a limit, though. A key ring is an accessory but I doubt FOS would look kindly on an insurer that tried to restrict a claim on that basis (though it probably does increase the risk because if your keys are pinched it would help the thief identify the car)

Oscar_The_Grouch

The_Maestro wrote: »

what you are saying encourages people to obtain insurance cover for a vehicle at the lowest possible amount with minimal disclosure and then only disclosing in the event of an accident

Err... No... That's called fraud and doesn't result in you "paying the price of the increased premium"; it ends up with you being uninsured for the claim you are making and having to declare to ALL (not just motor) future insurers that you made a fraudulent application for insurance. You can imagine what that would do to your premiums.

The_Maestro wrote: »

I think I may de-reg my car with the DVLA and drive on full liability without insurance or tax since this legislative nonsense is just a scam

Ahh... I see.... You don't actually understand what you are insured for. Either that or your flippant comment was not thought out and you didn't consider it would give offence.

You are forgetting the third party risks and I don't expect you have the necessary funds available (section 144 of the Road Traffic Act says you can lodge £500,000 with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court) to exempt yourself from the requirements of third party insurance. This isn't a slight on you personally, but something I have gleaned from the fact that you say the 2nd hand value of modifications on your car exceed the insurance costs to declare them. This would not be something a millionaire is likely to say.

Now just to make it clear; if you do not disclose alterations to your car and the underwriter decides that, had they known about the modifications they would not have insured you, you are not insured. Anyone failing to disclose modifications to their insurers could end up in this postion, which would be dreadful for them if they had just hit someone elses car.

You seem to think that it is acceptable for you to lie to your insurers and hope to get away with it.

I was hit by an uninsured driver and badly injured.

I think your attitude to insurance needs to be reviewed.

rudekid48

magpiecottage wrote: »

Given that most price comparison websites ask for the registration number and then tell you what the car is, rather than the other way round, I think an insurer would be hard pressed to persuade the FOS that you ought to have realised that the metallic paint was non-standard - especially if it was the norm for that model and/or you bought it second hand.

I don't agree that this is a relevant example. The registration look-up returns basic details that are held by the DVLA, namely the make and model, it does not include any add ons as they are not on the database. e.g. a registration look-up will come back and tell you that it is a Ford Mondeo 1.8 Zetec, it will not tell you that it is a Ford Mondeo 1.8 Zetec with a spoiler, optional alloys and metallic paint.

raskazz

rudekid48 wrote: »

I don't agree that this is a relevant example. The registration look-up returns basic details that are held by the DVLA, namely the make and model, it does not include any add ons as they are not on the database. e.g. a registration look-up will come back and tell you that it is a Ford Mondeo 1.8 Zetec, it will not tell you that it is a Ford Mondeo 1.8 Zetec with a spoiler, optional alloys and metallic paint.

I agree with this although a few people on this thread are hung up on the metallic paint. I'm fairly sure that the OP's increase in premium is mainly, if not wholly, down to the alloys. It is inconceivable that an insurer would reject a claim due to metallic paint added in the factory with no other extras. On the other hand, an aftermarket pearlescent paint job along with other mods probably would be something that an insurer would examine very carefully.