Insurance- no option for modification?

InsideInsurance

kpizzle17 wrote: »

Do you know if Directline are any better for this stuff? Or as an insurer in general?

Havent checked the DL wording for a while but I know they certainly only used to want post production changes being notified to them.

Given my professional life it'd be inappropriate to make recommendations of which insurers are better or worse but you could look at the likes of Which? (http://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/reviews-ns/car-insurance/best-and-worst-car-insurance/) for independent recommendations - though I do find some of their results odd.

Gloomendoom

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Both were horrendous for my modded car, wanted over £2k -v- under £500 from Aviva

I've had mixed results. For my current car: Flux £750 vs Knott £250. For other people with a similar car and similar mods the difference isn't quite so marked. Flux's quote for my 4x4 was very competitive.

The best advice for everyone is always to shop around and dont believe that one or two companies are universally the best for anyone

Very true.

kpizzle17

Well I think I'm going to go direct with Admiral - I just did a quote, stating the parking sensors and it was £200 cheaper than any comparison site!!! I thought they were supposed to find the cheapest quotes..what a rip off.

Thanks to all for the advice

Gloomendoom

kpizzle17 wrote: »

Well I think I'm going to go direct with Admiral - I just did a quote, stating the parking sensors and it was £200 cheaper than any comparison site!!! I thought they were supposed to find the cheapest quotes..what a rip off.

Thanks to all for the advice

Have you checked what cashback you could get with a new policy?

http://www.topcashback.co.uk/car-insurance/cashback/

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

kpizzle17 wrote: »

Well I think I'm going to go direct with Admiral - I just did a quote, stating the parking sensors and it was £200 cheaper than any comparison site!!! I thought they were supposed to find the cheapest quotes..what a rip off.

Thanks to all for the advice

My experience with Admiral suggests that they play silly games.

My renewal for 2 cars, over £2k. Individual quotes came in (with all extras added on either through the quote or as add ons such as Green Flag which was cheaper stand alone than as an add on) at £650 for the tricky one and £300 for the easy one.

Went back to Admiral, they came down to about £1500, not even close. The tricky car had a quote of about £850 as base premium, plus various add ons. Admiral was nowhere to be seen on the list. When we did the final quote all details the same but at a different address (someone is finally moving out) the other quotes were virtually identical but Admiral popped up at a very competitive price. The point being that Admiral were fudging the Compare the Market quote as they detected an existing customer.

I believe Admiral have a very aggressive anti-existing customer or aggressive new business discount, so be very careful on renewal.

InsideInsurance

They do have aggressive new customer discounting however until I switched car they were still always the cheapest insurer I would touch with a barge pole on renewal. Since changing car Aviva and Tesco have jumped infront of them.

What they are good at though is knocking 25% off the renewal quote just for you saying you've seen cheaper elsewhere (even if they are actually your cheapest price)

NVRAM

dannyrst wrote: »

Honestly, it's a waste of £200.

Just imagine how many cars are on the road that have retro fitted optional extras, been traded in and then bought by someone with no idea that it has been modified.

For those who say all modifications should be declared, do you include Halfords replacement bulbs? Replacement tyres that aren't the same make as came with the car?

If tyres are non standard, e.g profile width and speeds rating or perhaps even on non standard alloys the insurance company could spot this and refuse a claim.

"should have been using correct tyres" - crashed
"alloys made car more desirable" - stolen/torched

A lad on a car forum Im on had a shedload of mods declared, but had forgotten about his tinted rear windows, and when the car was torched the insurance company refused to pay out due to the tints not being declared.

marlot

NVRAM wrote: »

If tyres are non standard, e.g profile width and speeds rating or perhaps even on non standard alloys the insurance company could spot this and refuse a claim.

"should have been using correct tyres" - crashed
"alloys made car more desirable" - stolen/torched

A lad on a car forum Im on had a shedload of mods declared, but had forgotten about his tinted rear windows, and when the car was torched the insurance company refused to pay out due to the tints not being declared.

Did he appeal the decision, with the insurer, then the FOS?

InsideInsurance

NVRAM wrote: »

A lad on a car forum Im on had a shedload of mods declared, but had forgotten about his tinted rear windows, and when the car was torched the insurance company refused to pay out due to the tints not being declared.

It is unlikely that such a decision would be upheld unless the insurer can (a) prove it was an intentional act of fraud to not declare it and based on what you are saying that hardly looks likely or (b) the insurer wouldnt have insured the vehicle had the mod been declared and again given they've accepted other mods its highly unlikely that rear screen tinting would make any difference.

LandyAndy

Parking sensors on an i10?


How bad are your parking skills?