Undeclared 'Modifications' - car insurance

mikey72

Previous page

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.
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.

The_Maestro

raskazz wrote: »

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?

The insurance company is Privilege (direct line). I accept that in purely contractual terms I am in breach of contract because I didn't read the fine print (which incidentely they never sent me). The FSA is protecting me to an extent for my lack of care in attending to the details of the contract.. Unfortunately not many people have an encyclopedic knowledge of what is an optional extra on any particular car these days and there even after researching it there is no definative answer - manufacturers can change their packages all the time. After much research, on balance, I believe that metallic paint and alloys were an optional extra on my car although I can\t say for 100% sure.

As I have said before for very good reasons I have NOT cost cost my insurers any money, they are ripping me off, although I have follow FSA regulations and that is possibly better than accepting a nullified contract in this particular instance, although not much.

PS. Are you seriously even contemplating that people 'get compensated' at the expense of increased travel safety would be a preferable scenario? If so, you are out of your tiny mind my friend

olly300

The_Maestro wrote: »

The insurance company is Privilege (direct line). I accept that in purely contractual terms I am in breach of contract because I didn't read the fine print (which incidentely they never sent me).

It's freely available on their website: http://www.privilege.com/motor/policy.htm

Pg 22 states "We may treat some accessories as modifications, so please tell us about any alterations to your car"

raskazz

The_Maestro wrote: »

As I have said before for very good reasons I have NOT cost cost my insurers any money, they are ripping me off, although I have follow FSA regulations and that is possibly better than accepting a nullified contract in this particular instance, although not much.

Re: not costing your insurers any money.

Ignore everything that happened after you set the policy up.

When you set the policy up you did not disclose the required information. On the (incorrect) information you provided you paid £w and accepted an excess of £x.

Had you fulfilled your obligations and disclosed the information correctly then they would have charged you £y with an excess of £z. The differences in premium and excess will be documented in their underwriting guide which was used at the time.

They are not ripping you off. They are charging you what you would have paid had you answered questions accurately.

You have ripped yourself off by not fulfilling your obligations in respect of disclosure. If you had fulfilled those obligations you may well have selected another insurer at a cheaper correct rate, and would have avoided this hassle to boot.

raskazz

The_Maestro wrote: »

PS. Are you seriously even contemplating that people 'get compensated' at the expense of increased travel safety would be a preferable scenario? If so, you are out of your tiny mind my friend

BTW, I'm still waiting on your explanation as to which particular piece of legislation protects the uninsured driver more than the victim of that uninsured driver.

How much do you know about the Road Traffic Act and the MIB's Untraced and Uninsured Driver Agreements?

olly300

The_Maestro wrote: »

As I have said before for very good reasons I have NOT cost cost my insurers any money, they are ripping me off, although I have follow FSA regulations and that is possibly better than accepting a nullified contract in this particular instance, although not much.

You haven't followed the T&Cs of your insurance policy, or FSA regulations as you like to refer to it.

All you had to do is tell them that your car had alloy wheels and metallic paint, and you weren't sure whether these were standard.............

Though personally I find out if alloy wheels etc are standard on a car before I brought it.

The_Maestro

raskazz wrote: »

Re: not costing your insurers any money.

Ignore everything that happened after you set the policy up.

When you set the policy up you did not disclose the required information. On the (incorrect) information you provided you paid £w and accepted an excess of £x.

Had you fulfilled your obligations and disclosed the information correctly then they would have charged you £y with an excess of £z. The differences in premium and excess will be documented in their underwriting guide which was used at the time.

They are not ripping you off. They are charging you what you would have paid had you answered questions accurately.

You have ripped yourself off by not fulfilling your obligations in respect of disclosure. If you had fulfilled those obligations you may well have selected another insurer at a cheaper correct rate, and would have avoided this hassle to boot.

raskazz, you have been very helpful on this topic and your earlier links to FSA/FSO ombudsman policies have been most helpful even though they are not in my favour. It appears that they are within their contractual rights to retrospecively charge me an increased premium and up the excess. I thank you for clarifying my legal position. We merely disagree on societal and moral issues.

I will answer your question about legislation protecting uninsured drivers though. According to a recent industry announcement uninsured drivers cost insured drivers an average of 31 pounds per policy. So does this imply that uninsured drivers are actually paying out? No they pay nothing and we all pay in higher premiums. What 'laws' do you think make uninsured drivers pay back the injured if they cause loss?? The only one I am aware of is if you sue them under common law. Very few uninsured drivers are sued although it does happen but even then if you successfully sue them, if they don't have much money, legislation will step in and won't allow you for example to take their house which under pure common law you would be able to.. No one in this society operates under full liability and that is why it is so corrupt. People don't have to take the full consequences for their actions or the risks they take. This is purely down to commerce and promoting economic growth.

I consider this topic closed as you have answered my question.

raskazz

The_Maestro wrote: »

I will answer your question about legislation protecting uninsured drivers though. According to a recent industry announcement uninsured drivers cost insured drivers an average of 31 pounds per policy. So does this imply that uninsured drivers are actually paying out? No they pay nothing and we all pay in higher premiums. What 'laws' do you think make uninsured drivers pay back the injured if they cause loss?? The only one I am aware of is if you sue them under common law. Very few uninsured drivers are sued although it does happen but even then if you successfully sue them, if they don't have much money, legislation will step in and won't allow you for example to take their house which under pure common law you would be able to.. No one in this society operates under full liability and that is why it is so corrupt. People don't have to take the full consequences for their actions or the risks they take. This is purely down to commerce and promoting economic growth.

This is all well and good but with respect you are only now mentioning one side of the problem (the treatment of uninsured drivers) - whilst ignoring the treatment of the victim, when you were actually previously comparing the two. The fact that punishments for uninsured driving under criminal law could be harsher does not in my opinion imply that those who are guilty of such an offence are protected more than the victims of their actions.

Everyone in this country knows that should they be injured by an uninsured driver then they will get compensated, to unlimited amounts, either by suing the driver, being compensated by the insurer through the workings of the Road Traffic Act or being compensated by the MIB's Uninsured Driver Agreement.

This is a far more preferable scenario then the one you suggested earlier - i.e. that if compulsory insurance was abolished people would be 'more careful'. In such a scenario anyone who was moderately well-off would still purchase insurance and the underclass with no assets (who are incidentally the segment who cause the most frequent and most severe accidents) would not, but wouldn't have any assets to compensate the victims of their driving.

sharpdeath

If the wheels and paint were optional extras from the factory, then no you don't have to tell them if you supplied the proper model code for that vehicle. It should have been covered from their code list which allows for the factory options. They're just pulling a fast one.

pastra

It would seem harsh to make you declare and pay extra for factory options!

What make and model of cars is it?

I also think the wording on page 22 is very weak, and may help any honest case.

"We may treat some accessories as modifications, so please tell us about any alterations to your car"