Direct Line cancels insurance, in fear of a big debt arising

Richard53

dacouch wrote: »

Motorbike Insurers are often more sympathetic to modifications.

As far as I know, none of the motorcyclists I know declare modifications unless they are specifically performance-related or major, and sometimes not even then. I get the impression that bike insurers tend to assume that owners will modify to some extent, and are fairly tolerant. I'd like to make sure that impression is the correct one, though.

Quentin wrote: »

If they tell you "no problem", then ask them to confirm you have notified the mods. (We see lots of posts where telephone conversations with insurers service centres over significant matters "cannot be traced" in the future resulting in bad consequences)

I always get a name, and note the date and time of a call to insurers, as they always tell you that calls are recorded 'for training and quality control purposes'. However, I agree that getting written confirmation is better.

fivetide wrote: »

You should declare these mods. The insurance is based on risk. With panniers your bike might actually be at a higher risk of theft because most stolen bikes are broken into bits and yours has more saleable parts than one without panniers etc.

That's a fair point, hadn't thought of it that way.

Thanks for the responses. Will be on the phone on my next day off. Sorry if I have hijacked the thread

TrickyWicky

cocobrice wrote: »

It feels that the insurer can just get out of the situation relatively easy. Where is they don't really do much to ensure they are aware of all little details, they can later play in their advantage. And there is no compassion to the customer.

As I said to you earlier, they explicitly ask you every renewal if you've had any modifications and you have clearly answered no. That or they had you on autorenew and asked you to confirm to them if you had made any changes and you ignored it.

You can whinge and moan all you want about how unfair it is, at the end of the day they have asked you and you did not tell them. How is that unfair? Everyone else is expected to play by the rules, what makes you think you had the right to cheat the rest of us and increase our premiums?

Everyone is told by their insurer that if you don't tell them everything they need to know, their insurance may be voided. You've ignored it and chose to risk it thinking you could outsmart them and get away with it. Now it's come round to bite you in the backside you're complaining how unfair it is.

cocobrice wrote: »

It makes you seriously doubt if the policy is there to protect you and others around or money in someones pocket.

It also makes you doubt the moral ethics of someone who would not tell their insurer the whole truth in order to get lower premiums while letting other innocent motorists pay for it.

cocobrice wrote: »

it has had a big effect on work and family relationship

Like what? Lots of money saved, a few extra days out, trips to the cinema and other treats? I bet you didn't complain about that when you were saving money by not declaring your mod did you?

Remember all those times you hear people saying about declaring mods and you smugly thought "I wouldn't bother they'll never know".. well this is what happens to you. As it turns out those people who play by the rules are usually better off for it. They're realistic about what they can afford rather than taking risks.

cocobrice wrote: »

* It is illegal to own a vehicle without an insurance that is not declared off the road...

This is the ONLY point I will agree with you on being unfair. It also goes to show however that YOU ARE up to date with the rules and knew you needed to declare modifications and chose not to.

Sorry but as much as I dislike DL for the trouble they've given me in the past, I think they've done the right thing. They're one of the cheapest budget insurers out there and to try and cheat them of a few quid more by not telling them of a mod is just idiotic.

Even when you insure a second hand car you're at risk if you don't know what it came out of the factory like. My answer to the insurer when they ask if there have been any mods is "Not that I know of". They record the calls so if they proceed to insure me on that basis and then claim it's been modded it's their problem and not mine.

patman99

This is one reason why I always answer the question regarding modifications to a vehicle with the words 'not to the best of my knowledge'. After all, unless you happen to know the spec of every car on the road, how would you know whether or not it had been modified ?.

I would say as a matter of rule however, that if you carry-out a mod yourself (such as swapping steel rims for alloys, or fitting parking sensors) then you should inform the insurance company.

Gra76

cocobrice wrote: »

After engineer inspection discovered an undisclosed modification - strut brace (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strut_bar), that I've purchased and installed 6-7 years ago. At the time the insurer did not acknowledge the part as a modification.

Over the time I had completely forgotten about its existence and missed declaring it when I had a new insurance with Direct Line.

What I am really struggling with is the decision from Direct Line to cancel my insurance, not willing to show understanding to the fact that I had omitted by error rather than intentionally and completely forgotten of the existence of a part that was found on Halfords reduced items shelf for £10-15 so long ago and did not come with any warnings or any indication that may invalidate or affect my insurance premium and was not considered a modification earlier.

Since the time the part was, insurers have changed the rules and now saying that they would have not insured me in the first place had been aware of the existence of the part.

What a load of rubbish. A modification is anything you do to the car that is not standard when it comes out of the factory. Direct Line (and I'm sure all other insurers) have classed anything not fitted as it came out of the factory as a modification for a lot longer than the 7-8 years you're talking about.

In my younger, more foolish years, I spent a lot of money on a fancy show car (insured by Direct Line for the entire duration of ownership) and this was well before the 7-8 years ago you're talking about. I bought it standard and then over a period of maybe 4-5 years I modified it. I had to declare every single thing that I'd done to it as soon as it was done so the policy could be updated and kept accurate. One of those 'modifications' was a strut brace. I declared it the morning it was fitted and if memory serves correctly I'm pretty sure it didn't even add anythign to the policy, but it kept it accurate, and that's the important part. After all, it was a modification, and you're supposed to update your insurers with modifications.

Conveniently 'forgetting' to mention it is no excuse. You misled Direct Line whether you meant to or not and in black and white terms your insurance was invalid the second you 'forgot' to mention it.

Saying that Direct Line didn't acknowledge a strut brace as a modification is rediculous. Of course they do. It's not fitted by the manufacturers as standard, by definition it's a modification.

oscarward

Gra76 wrote: »

Saying that Direct Line didn't acknowledge a strut brace as a modification is rediculous. Of course they do. It's not fitted by the manufacturers as standard, by definition it's a modification.

I'm insured with direct line.

When I took out insurance I made sure that extras that were factory fitted were declared on the policy and when I fitted a set of winter tyres inc alloys I declared those as well. it cost a little extra on top of the admin fee (why?) but I paid.

Really glad I did now.

OP my sympathy is with you.

TrickyWicky

oscarward wrote: »

when I fitted a set of winter tyres inc alloys I declared those as well.

For that very reason I have 2.3 sets of spare identical alloys (yes, I mean 2 complete sets and then three more alloys). I figured that if I need to use winter tyres it probably isn't a modification but a different set of alloys / steelies would be. If the alloys are the same they can't invalidate a claim :cool:

cocobrice

Thank you everyone for the replies. Some I found very helpful some a little offending in a way, but I guess this comes with engaging in such a public dispute. Everyone has a right to voice an opinion and take side and I respect every side of it.

Hope that this discussion has and will help others avoid unintentional mistakes like the one I did - those cost dearly! It could have been a lot worse I suppose. Ask if not sure, be wary and assume worse.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

...It also goes to show however that YOU ARE up to date with the rules and knew you needed to declare modifications and chose not to.

Yes, I am now a lot more aware of the rules applying in the insurance industry, since I have been looking into this matter in greater detail than ever before. I am still not convinced and will continue to believe that the outcome is not fair for people in my situation. I have not intentionally and never will, especially after what happened, tried to lie or profit from an insurance or gain advantage of the situation.

It feels that both sides are not with equal rights, there is too much power in the hands of one side and not a lot of clarity in the processes. It is easy filling in an online form in 10 minutes and you could be out with the print out in your pocket, and yet braking the law, without even realising it. When it comes to having to rely on the agreement and acted unintentionally wrong, you are left on your own, having to deal with accident losses, unhelpful insurer and all sorts of consequences for years to come.

Yes, it is a risk cover, that both sides agree on in the form of the policy. Consumers trust the other side to have calculated all risks, and yes, it feels that sometimes we pay dearly for fulfilling a lawful obligation even if we never come to use the service. But again it seems really easy for this to become one side nightmare despite the intention of acting in the best of both sides interests.

It is not just about been this situation, but making sure punishment is fair and mistakes are NOT repeated again in my view. This is how we all ought to be happier.

Regards to you all.

Lum

cocobrice wrote: »

It feels that both sides are not with equal rights, there is too much power in the hands of one side and not a lot of clarity in the processes. It is easy filling in an online form in 10 minutes and you could be out with the print out in your pocket, and yet braking the law, without even realising it. When it comes to having to rely on the agreement and acted unintentionally wrong, you are left on your own, having to deal with accident losses, unhelpful insurer and all sorts of consequences for years to come.

This is basically correct. It's not a fair system, and there's naff all you or I can do much about it.

Only minor niggle is you haven't broken the law, you have broken the T&Cs with a private company, this is a civil matter, not a legal one. The insurer is obliged to pay out to the person your hit, so you have not been driving without insurance in terms of getting a big fine and points on your licence.

Small comfort I know. I wish you the best of luck, even if I did come across rather harsh in an earlier post.

Do try getting quotes for a similar vehicle to yours with and without a strut brace fitted. If they come out the same then print them and include copies in your complaint to the ombudsman.

Buzby

Could I also say, that you now MUST declare when your new insurer asks if you had any policy declined or cancelled. If you don't the new policy will also be voided - irrespective of the vehicle.

dbramley

I would say regardless of whether they say the strut brace is a modification or not it should have had no contribution what so ever to the accident you were in. Therefore I don't think they've made the correct decision here.

Fitting different brakes, performance parts, wheels etc. could have all had a bearing. A strut brace I don't think so