Will my roof box void my car insurance claim?

RSimmo

Hi,
Our car and roof box were stolen last week while on staycation. We're insured with policy direct (who I'm still waiting to call me back!?) I'm just worried after reading online that we should of informed them about the roofbox as it can be classed as a modification and could void our policy. Does anyone have any experience of this? Should I just not mention the roofbox when they do eventually get in touch???

Thanks 

unkle

Depending on your cover the box itself may not be covered, but highly unlikely to effect the claim overall. Just declare it had a roof box on, better than being caught out lying (which could in itself void your policy and claim).

Sandtree

A roof box is one that may depend on individual insurance companies interpretations and may also depend on if its a permanent addition or something put on/taken off. 

A quick google shows the likes of Churcihill do count it as a vehicle modification and therefore should be declared. The consequences of having not declared it will depend on what your insurer's response would have been had you declared it before the incident.

TELLIT01

I can understand there being an issue with an insurance claim if the roofbox was the cause of the claim e.g. catching it on a height restriction barrier, but refusing a claim for a stolen car on the basis of one being fitted would surely fail if taken to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Sandtree

TELLIT01 said:

I can understand there being an issue with an insurance claim if the roofbox was the cause of the claim e.g. catching it on a height restriction barrier, but refusing a claim for a stolen car on the basis of one being fitted would surely fail if taken to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The OP when buying the insurance will have been asked if there is an modifications to the vehicle. They have declared no. The outcome depends on both if the insurer covers cars with roofboxes and if its believed that it was an accident or intentional/reckless misrepresentation.

As you will note from Misrepresentation and non-disclosure (financial-ombudsman.org.uk) FOS doesnt consider if the modification was in any way related to claim or not. 

Aretnap

Sandtree said:

TELLIT01 said:

I can understand there being an issue with an insurance claim if the roofbox was the cause of the claim e.g. catching it on a height restriction barrier, but refusing a claim for a stolen car on the basis of one being fitted would surely fail if taken to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The OP when buying the insurance will have been asked if there is an modifications to the vehicle. They have declared no. The outcome depends on both if the insurer covers cars with roofboxes and if its believed that it was an accident or intentional/reckless misrepresentation.

Also on whether the question was worded clearly enough that the customer would have realised that they were supposed to declare it. I would imagine that most people would not think of a temporary accessory like a roof box or a bike rack as a "modification" to their car, so the the insurer would have to be clear about the fact that they did that they did regard it as such. 

Sandtree

Aretnap said:

Sandtree said:

TELLIT01 said:

I can understand there being an issue with an insurance claim if the roofbox was the cause of the claim e.g. catching it on a height restriction barrier, but refusing a claim for a stolen car on the basis of one being fitted would surely fail if taken to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The OP when buying the insurance will have been asked if there is an modifications to the vehicle. They have declared no. The outcome depends on both if the insurer covers cars with roofboxes and if its believed that it was an accident or intentional/reckless misrepresentation.

Also on whether the question was worded clearly enough that the customer would have realised that they were supposed to declare it. I would imagine that most people would not think of a temporary accessory like a roof box or a bike rack as a "modification" to their car, so the the insurer would have to be clear about the fact that they did that they did regard it as such. 

And as per my original answer, I suspect insurers views on if it counts as a modification may vary and in particular if its the removable type or something more permanently attached

Aretnap

Sandtree said:

Aretnap said:

Sandtree said:

TELLIT01 said:

I can understand there being an issue with an insurance claim if the roofbox was the cause of the claim e.g. catching it on a height restriction barrier, but refusing a claim for a stolen car on the basis of one being fitted would surely fail if taken to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The OP when buying the insurance will have been asked if there is an modifications to the vehicle. They have declared no. The outcome depends on both if the insurer covers cars with roofboxes and if its believed that it was an accident or intentional/reckless misrepresentation.

Also on whether the question was worded clearly enough that the customer would have realised that they were supposed to declare it. I would imagine that most people would not think of a temporary accessory like a roof box or a bike rack as a "modification" to their car, so the the insurer would have to be clear about the fact that they did that they did regard it as such. 

And as per my original answer, I suspect insurers views on if it counts as a modification may vary and in particular if its the removable type or something more permanently attached

Of course I'm sure that attitudes vary from insurer to insurer; my point was just that any insurers who do class something like a removable roof box as a modification would have to make this very clear on the proposal form. It wouldn't be reasonable IMO simply to ask "has the car been modified" and expect the customer to realise that they're supposed to say "yes, I occasionally put a roof box on when I go on holiday".

I did search through the FOS decisions pages for various terms like "roof box modification" and "roof rack modification" and found nothing of relevance. Which makes me suspect than in the real world insurers must rarely or never reject claims because of the presence of a roof box, because if they did I'm sure they would be generating complaints...

Mickey666

On the few occasions I've asked insurers about modifications they've said they are only interested in modifications that affect the performance of the vehicle.  Of course, I've not asked EVERY insurer, but that stance makes sense to me.  I can't really imagine that a roof box significantly increases the insurance risk, which is ultimately what they want to assess.

Keep_pedalling

According to Confused.com roof racks should be declared. I never did in the past but luckily my current and next care have factory fitted hitched for my bike carrier which don't need to be declared.

https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/guides/modified-car-insurance

user1977

Keep_pedalling said:

According to Confused.com roof racks should be declared. I never did in the past but luckily my current and next care have factory fitted hitched for my bike carrier which don't need to be declared.

https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/guides/modified-car-insurance

Blimey. Bit of a faff if you have to amend your policy every weekend you put the roof rack on!