Car Insurance - What's a modification?

malc_b

I'm trying to get a straight answer out of Admiral and failing. Simple question what cosmetic modifications do you need to know about? The answer I get back is everything since it left the factory! So if I fit mud flats and car mats I need to tell you? Everything since it left the factory.

Well this is just stupid. Does anyone tell their insurers when the replace the car mats or fit mud flaps?

I can understand that if you 500 quids worth of alloys that probably makes the car more likely to be stolen (for the alloys). So that would put up the cost. But where is the line? The insurance already says the car will be repaired to standard condition, so alloys are covered, unless as well as paying high base premium you add modifications cover extra too. All that I can understand.

Admiral online quote system does give you a list but exterior modifications and interior modifications are too broad. Car mats and mud flaps tick both those boxes, and that does put up the premium.

Quentin

If your insurer has given you the answer to your question, then you need to comply with their answer, not any you get here - otherwise you allow them the opportunity to deny you a claim if undeclared modifications are considered relevant.

malc_b

Quentin wrote: »

If your insurer has given you the answer to your question, then you need to comply with their answer, not any you get here - otherwise you allow them the opportunity to deny you a claim if undeclared modifications are considered relevant.

True, but my question was mainly rhetorical. The answer I've given as I said above is that everything is a potential modification, i.e. mud flaps and car mats. I have to disclose material facts. Not everything is a material fact. Certainly not car mat unless 22ct gold plated!

I wondered if anyone had an answer to this or experience of it. Insurance companies are governed by FSA and UK law (unreasonable contract terms) so they can't just say everything, much as they'd like to.

dunstonh

Well this is just stupid. Does anyone tell their insurers when the replace the car mats or fit mud flaps?

No. However, it gives the insurer an a reason not to pay out.

In reality, mats are not going to make any difference. Mudflaps unlikely to either.

Insurance companies are governed by FSA and UK law (unreasonable contract terms) so they can't just say everything, much as they'd like to.

They can choose to offer or refuse business to whoever they like as long as its not discrimination. So, if they say they dont want to offer cover because you have aftermarket mudflaps then that is their choice and no law, FSA or FOS can stop them.

Quentin

malc_b wrote: »

True, but my question was mainly rhetorical. The answer I've given as I said above is that everything is a potential modification, i.e. mud flaps and car mats. I have to disclose material facts. Not everything is a material fact. Certainly not car mat unless 22ct gold plated!

Maybe you should have had the courtesy to say your thread was a rhetorical question in the first place!

And I doubt any insurer has told you that car mats are a modification!

Maybe you should have used the rant forum for this thread?

ROY47

Tell them everyting including mud flaps, mats, badges e.g you stick a gt badge on the bootlid or hang an air freshner from the mirror (that will fail mot ) or change the radio/cd for a different one if they say that's not a modification ask for it in writing please

if they can avoid paying out they will

an air freshner hanging from the mirror would be classed as impairing your forward vision :eek: :eek:

we all got one haven't we

malc_b

I mis-phrased my answer. The thread title is sort of rhetorical. I was seeking experiences not ranting.

Actually they can't refuse you cover because of after market mudflaps unless they applied the same rules to everyone, which clearly they don't. My point was that under UK law unreasonable contract terms are not allowed. IMO it's unreasonable to require customers to tell insurers about everything. And given that every change you make to a policy incurs an admin fee then it becomes costly too, not to mention a PITA waiting in a phone queue.

Oh, and I put the point about the answer - tell us everything - included car mats and mud flaps. The insurer's response was just to repeat "tell us everything since the car left the factory". So they did NOT say I could ignore mats. The opposite in fact.

I'm required to tell insurers any material facts. That is items which affect the quote. Question is what are those and how to I know if the insurers won't give a sensible answer?

Yes insurers do try to get out of paying, that's why we have an FSA ombudsman who from looking at the cases comes down quite hard on insurers taking the Mic. The typical response seems to be that rather than voiding any payout it is just scaled down by the under payment.

I doubt that having an air freshener (which I don't have BTW) is a material fact but what do I know. If you play with on line quotes and changes you'll find (for Admiral) that it costs more to park you car overnight in a garage. Price wise it goes Garage > Driveway > Road. Yep, that's right it is cheapest to park overnight on the road. Who would think that (other than insurers)?

dunstonh

Actually they can't refuse you cover because of after market mudflaps unless they applied the same rules to everyone, which clearly they don't

Yes they can. If they operate a sliding risk assessment then a modification for a high risk driver already could take it past their tolerance and cause a rejection. Whereas for a low risk driver, it could stay under the tolerance.

Mudflaps are a very poor example given that they are not likely to be something of concern.

My point was that under UK law unreasonable contract terms are not allowed. IMO it's unreasonable to require customers to tell insurers about everything. And given that every change you make to a policy incurs an admin fee then it becomes costly too, not to mention a PITA waiting in a phone queue.

I disagree. Its a very simple question with a very simple answers. It would only be an issue for those that are not applying common sense.

If you play with on line quotes and changes you'll find (for Admiral) that it costs more to park you car overnight in a garage. Price wise it goes Garage > Driveway > Road. Yep, that's right it is cheapest to park overnight on the road. Who would think that (other than insurers)?

I think you will find that Admiral confirmed that its only in high risk areas where there have been house break ins where the keys have been stolen that they increase the price for driveway parked cars as those on the road are less likely to suffer that type of claim.

malc_b

I'm sorry dunstonh but we'll have to agree to differ on this. As far as I can see you contradict yourself. My point is that if mud flaps are a material fact then the insurers must require that either everybody or nobody has to disclose them. Even after asking Admiral refused to say that mud flaps could be ignored. To me that contradicts "It would only be an issue for those that are not applying common sense." and "Mudflaps are a very poor example given that they are not likely to be something of concern.". Common sense and practice is that nobody tells their insurer's when they fit mud flaps. Or perhaps you are implying that it is just a quick phone call. You can't have phoned many insurers then. You wait in a queue for ages, usually paying rip off phone call charges, then if it isn't a stock answer they go away for ages. My guess that if anyone phoned about mud flaps the most likely that the call centre wouldn't have clue what to do so would err on the side of putting the premium up, rather than the common sense approach of "of course we don't care about mud flaps". That is after all my experience in my replies from Admiral.

You're also wrong on the parking on the road point too. Otherwise the cost would go down for a car parked in the garage wouldn't it. And if a thief stole car keys from a house how difficult is it to find the car that matches them. Just because it isn't on the drive doesn't hide the car. Blip the remote and he'd find it. The issue is more that there are more accidents (so I'm told) for car reversing out of drives and garages. I see this increase and I live in a village not an inner city or suburb.

But, I'm looking for anyone who can contribute their experience, not people applying their common sense. I have my own common sense. It's the lack of common sense from Admiral that is my problem.

molerat

Do I need to tell my insurers then ..... I have fitted a multi-speed wiper stalk, dimable dash lighting and footwell lighting. These are all done by replacing standard items with parts from higher spec models or fitting parts to the end of the already installed wiring and are all "plug and play". I have also fitted mudflaps, again oem parts. Common sense would say no but ...........

darich

molerat wrote: »

Do I need to tell my insurers then ..... I have fitted a multi-speed wiper stalk, dimable dash lighting and footwell lighting. These are all done by replacing standard items with parts from higher spec models or fitting parts to the end of the already installed wiring and are all "plug and play". I have also fitted mudflaps, again oem parts. Common sense would say no but ...........

On my last car I had to provide a list of optional extras supplied and fitted at the time of manufacture. That list included upgraded sound system, cruise control, alloy wheel style, xenon headlamps and several others.

My mate recently had to do it aswell.

On my current car though, I wasn't asked for the same list. So presumably, it depends on the insurer, the car and possibly even the customer as to whether the optional extras are required.