Undeclared 'Modifications' - car insurance

mikey72

Well to be realistic,
first prize will go to anyone
who can tell the the standard spec of a
FORD FIESTA 1.8D (95-95) SAPPH 3DR 1753cc 3DR
that I got a quote for at random.
Or do you think it shouldn't be insured unless I list a full itemised description on it, on an online quote with a pull down checkbox for with no space to enter any text.

(Actually, just tell me the wheel size, I don't even care if it's alloy or steel fitted 10 years ago)

You may have time to trawl through whatever you have, I just want to insure it..

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

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.

That's exactly what I mean, any aftermarket modification, is a modification, to the vehicle that was originally supplied.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

Well to be realistic,
first prize will go to anyone
who can tell the the standard spec of a
FORD FIESTA 1.8D (95-95) SAPPH 3DR 1753cc 3DR
that I got a quote for at random.
Or do you think it shouldn't be insured unless I list a full itemised description on it, on an online quote with a pull down checkbox for with no space to enter any text.

(Actually, just tell me the wheel size, I don't even care if it's alloy or steel fitted 10 years ago)

You may have time to trawl through whatever you have, I just want to insure it..

But this is the point. If you do know about any changes then surely it is best to disclose everything that you know about, then nothing will come back later to bite you on the ar5e

If you genuinely don't know that a car has been modified, and if it is unreasonable to expect you to know that it has been modified, and you made reasonable efforts to ensure that you were giving accurate information to the best of your knowledge and belief, then you will not encounter any problems.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

That's exactly what I mean, any aftermarket modification, is a modification, to the vehicle that was originally supplied.

That's very peculiar logic if I may say so.

That's like saying that because apples are fruit then oranges are not fruit.

Just because aftermarket modifications are modifications does not imply that factory modifications are not modifications.

olly300

raskazz wrote: »

That's very peculiar logic if I may say so.

That's like saying that because apples are fruit then oranges are not fruit.

Just because aftermarket modifications are modifications does not imply that factory modifications are not modifications.

mikey72 is arguing the fact that anything that is an optional extra fitted in the factory is not a modification regardless of whether it is alloy wheels or metallic paint.

He is ignoring the fact that insurers clearly define what is and what is not a modification in their t&cs.

mikey72

olly300 wrote: »

mikey72 is arguing the fact that anything that is an optional extra fitted in the factory is not a modification regardless of whether it is alloy wheels or metallic paint.

He is ignoring the fact that insurers clearly define what is and what is not a modification in their t&cs.

tbh I would have said you are ignoring everything my insurers have in their t&c's, which is solely as quoted, and then adding your own interpretation of what they should be saying, so I think we will have to agree to differ.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

tbh I would have said you are ignoring everything my insurers have in their t&c's, which is soley as quoted, and then adding your own interpretation of what they should be saying, so I think we will have to agree to differ.

Well, quite, but what I hope everyone realises is that insurers ask different questions, so just because your insurer asks one thing does not mean that other people should obtain insurance on the assumption that they are answering the question correctly when they may well not be.

The_Maestro

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

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.



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.

I am sorry that you were hit by an uninsured driver and injured however unnder full liability you can sue the driver for anything he is worth, however you will probably find that he is protected by LEGISLATION more than you are. Also you are accusing me of lying to my insurers in the hope of getting away with it, however the legislation and regulation mentioned protect liers if they are convincing. It doesn't protect me, it COSTS me, I never lied and I resent you comments. I have not caused my insureres loss in any way. The insurance business is to all to do with commerce not road safety. Do you think that people driving under full liability would drive LESS carefully - get real. The price of compulsory insurance is increased accidents and unfortunatly you are probably the victim. Would you rather have a 100,000 payout or be able to walk again (for example) because noone ever hit you.?

It all comes down to what kind of society you want to live in. Thanks for everyone's advice, I thin I will accept their offer. I did not want to get into a discussion of right and wrong, I was just interested in my legal situation in this matter. I'm not really interested in a wider philosophical debate on right and wrong. This is the wrong forum for that.

raskazz

The_Maestro wrote: »

I am sorry that you were hit by an uninsured driver and injured however unnder full liability you can sue the driver for anything he is worth, however you will probably find that he is protected by LEGISLATION more than you are. Also you are accusing me of lying to my insurers in the hope of getting away with it, however the legislation and regulation mentioned protect liers if they are convincing. It doesn't protect me, it COSTS me, I never lied and I resent you comments. I have not caused my insureres loss in any way. The insurance business is to all to do with commerce not road safety. Do you think that people driving under full liability would drive LESS carefully - get real. The price of compulsory insurance is increased accidents and unfortunatly you are probably the victim. Would you rather have a 100,000 payout or be able to walk again (for example) because noone ever hit you.?

This argument is totally facetious and with every further post which does not mention which insurer you are with (so that we can actually judge your situation on its merits), I suspect more and more that you are just a troll.

The whole point of compulsory insurance/securitisation is that innocent victims of negligent motorists get compensated. Are you seriously even contemplating that people 'being more careful' in the absence of such legislation would be a preferable scenario? If so, you are out of your tiny mind my friend.

As I know a bit about the subject, may I ask which particular piece of 'legislation' would protect an uninsured driver more than the victim of that driver? The Road Traffic Act 1988? The EU Directives? The Articles of Association of the Motor Insurers Bureau?

BTW, for about the 5th time on this thread: as things stand (until you pay the additional premium and accept the higher excess) YOU HAVE COST YOUR INSURERS MONEY BECAUSE YOU DID NOT PAY THE PREMIUM APPROPRIATE TO THE RISK PRESENTED AT INCEPTION. Is that clear enough?

dacouch

Mikey the only problem with your arguement about accessories is that it is an explanation of the word for a Churchill policy. They refer to accessories in the policy when stating what is and isn't covered.

Here is what Churchill actually state as an assumption when you obtain a quotation (This means the policy is subject to the vehicle conforming to the assumptions

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

It's a deliberately open question to try and catch as many modifications / alterations as possible and is completely different from your accessories quote