Mods and car insurance ?

InsideInsurance

Stoke wrote: »

He's plugging something into his OBD port. That's not a mod, it's merely a reader. Would you say installing a USB cable for your radio is a mod as well? Come off it.

I'm no expert but a quick google on MPGuino brings up lots of pages of people talking about finding the right wires to splice into which doesnt sound like a simple case of plugging it into a port

Stoke

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I'm no expert but a quick google on MPGuino brings up lots of pages of people talking about finding the right wires to splice into which doesnt sound like a simple case of plugging it into a port

Had another look, okay the MPGuino looks a little more than just a Scangauge. Still not a mod in my book but it might be worth calling and asking.

F1F93

Stoke wrote: »

He's plugging something into his OBD port. That's not a mod, it's merely a reader. Would you say installing a USB cable for your radio is a mod as well? Come off it.

Phone them by all means, but they'll probably turn round and say it's covered by your Multimedia Protection. Mine is all equipment up to a thousand pounds I think.

I was under the impression that the MPGunio was something like this:


I could be wrong though, as I've never heard of it. Either way, you are adding something physical to the car, are you not?

If its just a reader into the OBD port that sends a signal to your phone etc, then no, you are correct in that it shouldn't need disclosing. But I was under the impression that this gauge would be somehow fixed to the car.


And I added an aux cable to my car. I would have declared it as a modification, but I found a list of manufacturer fitted equipment which said that it should already have been there, but had obviously been removed at some point (or whichever dealer made the list lied!) so I felt that there was no need. However if I were to fit one to a car which never had an aux point, then yes, I would declare it.


My rule of thumb is - if you can easily remove it at the scene of an accident (with no special tools etc) then it's not a modification - so air fresheners, phone mounts etc. (Yes, I have seen people asking if these were mods before).

If you cannot remove it easily or need a special tool (including a radio removal key) then yes, you should declare it. So alloys, parking sensors, even a USB point.

Obviously I'm sure there are some exceptions, so you should always check.


At the end of the day, fail to declare something which you should have and you'll be driving around with no insurance. Whether you take that risk or not is up to you.

F1F93

roonaldo wrote: »

Not a mod just as Halfords car mats are not a mod, Parrot bluetooth is not a mod and a different stereo is not a mod.

The first I agree with, the second two I would declare. In fact I have a Parrot bluetooth kit waiting to be fitted and will declare it when I have installed it.

InsideInsurance

Stoke wrote: »

Had another look, okay the MPGuino looks a little more than just a Scangauge. Still not a mod in my book but it might be worth calling and asking.

You also have to remember that this is Admiral that count everything as a modification including metallic paint, decals, anything at all that was put on the car that is not the absolute basic for that make/model/mark

Now, the majority they dont charge for but if you dont declare them then you are asking for trouble in the future.

Stoke

InsideInsurance wrote: »

You also have to remember that this is Admiral that count everything as a modification including metallic paint, decals, anything at all that was put on the car that is not the absolute basic for that make/model/mark

Now, the majority they dont charge for but if you dont declare them then you are asking for trouble in the future.

It makes sense to declare then.

AdrianC

Stoke wrote: »

Some hypermiling tips are very useful.

Some are, yes. Many are just complete rubbish, even dangerous.

onomatopoeia99

F1F93 wrote: »

At the end of the day, fail to declare something which you should have and you'll be driving around with no insurance. Whether you take that risk or not is up to you.

You will still have a certificate and therefore (at the very least) third party insurance. The road traffic act is explicit about this, in that it prevents insurers refusing to pay out to third parties after a certificate has been issued. The insurer would have to void the policy ab initio and if they try that over an extra fuel economy gauge in the event of a claim, the ombudsman and indeed the courts will side with the policy holder. This scenario is rather different to someone insuring a Nova fitted with a DOHC red top as a 1.0 litre to get cheaper insurance.

Comprehensive cover could be affected, in that any payout could be reduced (potentially to zero, if the insurer would not have accepted the risk had they been informed).

While Carter vs Boehm , which established "utmost good faith", seems to no longer be relevant in contracts of insurance where one party is a "consumer", per the Consumer Insurance Act 2012, it is still a good idea to tell an insurer anything that might be relevant and there is a duty on the insured to take reasonable care not to misrepresent the risk.

rev_henry

Friend of mine is insured with admiral and has somehow managed to them to put a pleasingly vague 'interior modifications' clause on his policy at minimal cost, so he can do whatever he wants inside. Try it.

InsideInsurance

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

You will still have a certificate and therefore (at the very least) third party insurance. The road traffic act is explicit about this, in that it prevents insurers refusing to pay out to third parties after a certificate has been issued. The insurer would have to void the policy ab initio and if they try that over an extra fuel economy gauge in the event of a claim, the ombudsman and indeed the courts will side with the policy holder. This scenario is rather different to someone insuring a Nova fitted with a DOHC red top as a 1.0 litre to get cheaper insurance.

Comprehensive cover could be affected, in that any payout could be reduced (potentially to zero, if the insurer would not have accepted the risk had they been informed).

While Carter vs Boehm , which established "utmost good faith", seems to no longer be relevant in contracts of insurance where one party is a "consumer", per the Consumer Insurance Act 2012, it is still a good idea to tell an insurer anything that might be relevant and there is a duty on the insured to take reasonable care not to misrepresent the risk.

Its not as simple as "if you have a certificate of insurance you have third party insurance" unfortunately. Firstly, there is only RTA cover not TPO and so anything off of a public highway isnt covered. Secondly, under the RTA & common law the insurer also has the right of recovery against the driver and policyholder.

It is highly unlikely that an insurer would void the policy for non-declaration of an extra gauge but if their standard underwriting criteria is that they dont accept any changes to the electrics (and with this model you are cutting up the existing wiring not just plugging something in) and so would have grounds to cancel the policy.

The rules on certificates changed anyway after they were allowed to be issued electronically as the idea of "returning" the certificate has somewhat gone out the window when its an electronic file delivered by email.

The change in obligations doesnt really come up here as it is more focused on the initial sale where a customer now only has to answer whats asked and not offer up anything that may be relevant if the insurer doesnt ask. The policybook will dictate which changes in circumstances (eg change of vehicle, move address, modify vehicle) the insurers want to know straight away and which can wait until renewal.