Invalid car insurance - would you report someone?

desthemoaner

Personally I think the answer "its nothing to do with you" is a copout, and way off the mark.

Using the road alongside someone with whom one might come into close and perhaps even dangerous contact, and who displays an attitude like that young man is most certainly MY business, and I'd want him or anyone like him off the road as soon as possible, to make it safer for me and mine.

OK, maybe my third party costs WOULD be covered if I happened to meet him metal to metal, but if he isn't forced to confront the error of his ways, it sounds like he's the kind of guy who might eventually come to regard insurance as a generous personal gesture which is entirely optional.

So yes, shop him.

Filip

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Phone - no. The others yes.

However that's not the point is it (while we're being honest & all)!?

Point is, he's insured to drive a car fitting XYZ description. If it doesn't fit that description then he's not insured to drive it & therefore shouldn't be driving it. Right/wrong??!

THAT is the point.

You said earlier that u are unaware of what the mod is. It could be something as innocuous as an induction kit or non-standard exhaust, neither of which is going to make more than 10bhp difference at an absolute max. Far less likely to cause an accident than someone scoffing donuts while putting their sticky fingers all over the head unit to tune in to radio 2. How old is the lad? If u grass him up, all that will happen is that insurance will become completely unaffordable for him for years to come. And then what will happen?! He'll drive with no insurance at all and BANG, there goes the 3rd party liability. How's THAT for a point?

DUTR

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Young lad i know of (not a friend) has modified his car. I asked if he'd notified his insurers. The censored version of his reply was no. I said he really should as he's basically driving around withno insurance. I got another mature response that basically was no.

I don't see why i should pay full whack in being honest when people like this are basically driving around no insurance.

But would you bother shopping them? If so, i don't imagine you book an appointment with the local police station, so where do you report at?

It was probably his way of telling you to mind your own business?
He may well be insured and notified the insurers, how he has to report to you is what confuses me.
It's not a flame, but you sound like one of these that ask strangers " how did that cost?" then harp on about the price as if it is you paying for it.

rev_henry

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Phone - no. The others yes.

However that's not the point is it (while we're being honest & all)!?

Point is, he's insured to drive a car fitting XYZ description. If it doesn't fit that description then he's not insured to drive it & therefore shouldn't be driving it. Right/wrong??!

THAT is the point.

It kinda is the point though. Driving and phoning is a specific, blanket offence. Driving whilst eating/fiddling with the radio is not necessarily - actually careless driving must be proved as well for the offence to be complete. Similarly he IS complying with the road traffic act insurance requirements as his insurers will pay out for 3rd party damage. The matter of declaration of modifications is a contractual matter between him and the insurer.

Filip wrote: »

You said earlier that u are unaware of what the mod is. It could be something as innocuous as an induction kit or non-standard exhaust, neither of which is going to make more than 10bhp difference at an absolute max. Far less likely to cause an accident than someone scoffing donuts while putting their sticky fingers all over the head unit to tune in to radio 2. How old is the lad? If u grass him up, all that will happen is that insurance will become completely unaffordable for him for years to come. And then what will happen?! He'll drive with no insurance at all and BANG, there goes the 3rd party liability. How's THAT for a point?

Agree. A noisy exhaust is hardly the same as transplanting a 2.2 astra engine into a 1.0 corsa and not declaring it to the DVLA never mind the insurers (see ebay for plenty of examples!).

Aretnap

rev_henry wrote: »

Similarly he IS complying with the road traffic act insurance requirements as his insurers will pay out for 3rd party damage.

Not necessarily. Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act requires that you be covered by an insurance policy or you commit an offence. Separately, Section 151 of the RTA and Article 75 of the MIB agreement impose additional duties on the insurer to compensate third parties even when you're not covered by your policy. However they do not create a policy for you which satisfies the requirements of s143, and you can still be convicted of driving without insurance.

Not sure how it works in the case of non-disclosure* as not many insurers have really pushed the issue of voiding third party cover for non-disclosure, though Admiral seem to have managed it in the Bissmire case I mentioned earlier. However speaking generally there's case law going back many years to say that the fact your insurer would have paid out anyway, whether as an act of goodwill or through a statutory obligation, does not change the fact that you're not covered by your policy. Recently for example in Telford v Ahmed a minicab driver was caught plying for hire when his insurance policy only covered him for private hire use. The magistrates court incorrectly acquitted him of driving without insurance on the grounds that his insurer would have compensated third parties anyway, then looked to him for to recover their payouts. The High Court overturned the acquittal and ordered him to be convicted. Also ask the many people who have been convicted of driving without insurance because their policy only covered SDP and they were caught using their cars for business. And in the extreme case, if your car is stolen and the thief causes an accident your insurer can sometimes be required to pay third party claims - it doesn't make the thief insured to drive your car.

The misconception that if you have any sort of insurance policy for a car then the insurer will pay out to third parties and therefore you can't be convicted of driving without insurance is common, false and dangerous.

*Added: On further reading it seems that when a policy obtained by deception, unless the insurer has already taken steps to avoid it no offence of driving without insurance is committed, though other offences may well have been. Adams v Dunne 1978 seems to cover it. Which makes the rest of my post not very relevant to this specific situation, but still hopefully useful to someone in generally.

Prothet_of_Doom

jm2926 wrote: »

If he has an accident which is his fault his insurer will still pay out to the other party, but may not pay for his repairs. His lookout.

These days, the insurer then pursues the person to recover the costs they paid to the third party.

Question to the OP.

What are the Modifications ?

In the past I have fitted Astra GSI shocks and springs to a 1.4 astra, because (and I'm not lying), I noticed a rear spring had broken the last turn, whilst doing the back brakes.

It was a sunday, and I happened to have a set of GSI parts in the back of the garage (as you do), which I'd picked up in a job lot when what I wanted was the front brakes (which I'd fitted to a cavalier - as you do).

So the astra was about 1/2 inch lower and a bit firmer, and now modified. A risk ? A bigger risk ? Worth telling the insurer ? I'd only used those parts in order to save money.

I recently rang up to add a "performance exhaust modification" for an MX5, and explained to Flux that I'd purchased it because it was on offer, it was stainless, and would last the life of the car, and 1/5th the price on a mazda one. The price did not rise. But the risk is hardly higher.

In this case:

If the change was a larger engine, I'd let the police know.

If the change was pointless, or unlikely to change the risk (ie larger lower profile tyres, or a big bore exhaust with a standard cat,) I'd let it go.

flubberyzing

I'd have to agree with JustAnotherSaver. This kid is driving around in a sooped-up car that isn't in-line with the policy he has.
If he was honest with his insurance about what the car is NOW like, it's highly possible that he'd be priced off the road with the cost of the insurance.
And the reason that young kids have super-high insurance, and even more so with higher performance cars, is because the evidence indicates that kids of that age ARE NOT SAFE to be driving a car of that type on public roads. He is considered a danger to himself, and a danger to other road users.


He is cross about possibly having to pay more. But he is being charged more for the insurance because the RISK of him having an accident is HIGHER.


I'd shop him in an instant.


And one of my main reasons for doing so? When I was 18 years old, a male friend of mine killed himself in a road accident by driving too fast in a car that was too high performance for him to cope with.
I wouldn't want anyone else to go through what my friends and I went through when we lost P. 11 years on, we still think about him often and miss him dearly. And if I could stop another family/group of friends dealing with this trauma, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Prothet_of_Doom

Filip wrote: »

You said earlier that u are unaware of what the mod is. It could be something as innocuous as an induction kit or non-standard exhaust, neither of which is going to make more than 10bhp difference at an absolute max.

If that.

Years ago I bought a magazine, where they took an old Nova 1.4 sport, and spent the day at a rolling road.

They checked the power output.

It went something like :

Serviced it - It gained 10 bhp
Fitted a 'performance' Air filter Lost 1 bhp
Fitted performance spark plugs and Leads - No difference
Fitted a Cone air filter. Gained 4 bhp at 5500 rpm, lost 5 bhp at 3000 RPM
Fitted a performance exhaust. Lost 10 lbFt torque at 3000 RPM gained 2 bhp at 5500 RPM
Fitted high lift road cam Gained 8 BHP at 5500 RPM.

Put them all together.
Lost power and torque midrange, gained 10 BHP at top end just before redline.

These days if you have a CAT, and just fit a cat back, the only plus will be in Db's :rotfl:

Sinhanada

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Young lad i know of (not a friend) has modified his car. I asked if he'd notified his insurers. The censored version of his reply was no. I said he really should as he's basically driving around with no insurance. I got another mature response that basically was no.

I don't see why i should pay full whack in being honest when people like this are basically driving around no insurance.

But would you bother shopping them? If so, i don't imagine you book an appointment with the local police station, so where do you report at?

I can understand your concern, but no I wouldn't "shop" him. Speak to his parents by all means and point out the obvious.

rev_henry

Aretnap wrote: »

Not necessarily. Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act requires that you be covered by an insurance policy or you commit an offence. Separately, Section 151 of the RTA and Article 75 of the MIB agreement impose additional duties on the insurer to compensate third parties even when you're not covered by your policy. However they do not create a policy for you which satisfies the requirements of s143, and you can still be convicted of driving without insurance.

Not sure how it works in the case of non-disclosure* as not many insurers have really pushed the issue of voiding third party cover for non-disclosure, though Admiral seem to have managed it in the Bissmire case I mentioned earlier. However speaking generally there's case law going back many years to say that the fact your insurer would have paid out anyway, whether as an act of goodwill or through a statutory obligation, does not change the fact that you're not covered by your policy. Recently for example in Telford v Ahmed a minicab driver was caught plying for hire when his insurance policy only covered him for private hire use. The magistrates court incorrectly acquitted him of driving without insurance on the grounds that his insurer would have compensated third parties anyway, then looked to him for to recover their payouts. The High Court overturned the acquittal and ordered him to be convicted. Also ask the many people who have been convicted of driving without insurance because their policy only covered SDP and they were caught using their cars for business. And in the extreme case, if your car is stolen and the thief causes an accident your insurer can sometimes be required to pay third party claims - it doesn't make the thief insured to drive your car.

The misconception that if you have any sort of insurance policy for a car then the insurer will pay out to third parties and therefore you can't be convicted of driving without insurance is common, false and dangerous.

*Added: On further reading it seems that when a policy obtained by deception, unless the insurer has already taken steps to avoid it no offence of driving without insurance is committed, though other offences may well have been. Adams v Dunne 1978 seems to cover it. Which makes the rest of my post not very relevant to this specific situation, but still hopefully useful to someone in generally.

I did not know all that, reading the links will keep me busy for a while, thanks!