Dealer sold me a decat car without declaring the modification, meaning MOT & insurance invalid

p3ncilsharpener

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

Would the insurance really be invalid because a part had been removed without your knowledge?  I doubt it.

Seems like this should have been posted on the "I want to rant even though I'm wrong" board.

Yes it would; the onus is on the driver when it comes to declaring modifications.  The insurer may well have taken a 'view' on it, given the minor nature of the deviation from factory spec, but they would also be within their writes to cancel the policy, depending how the contract was written of course.  

The driver being completely unaware, and not unreasonably so?  The driver didn't modify the car, and is highly unlikely to take a car to bits to check that a part is missing.  Insurance declarations are largely done on a "reasonable belief" basis as it's unreasonable to expect people to take apart their house brick by brick or their car piece by piece to ensure that it's exactly as described.

Grumpy_chap

p3ncilsharpener said:

it's unreasonable to expect people to take apart their house brick by brick

I did that once, to be sure, then the insurance claim was declined as damage prior to inception.  A very expensive mistake 😃

Ditzy_Mitzy

p3ncilsharpener said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

Would the insurance really be invalid because a part had been removed without your knowledge?  I doubt it.

Seems like this should have been posted on the "I want to rant even though I'm wrong" board.

Yes it would; the onus is on the driver when it comes to declaring modifications.  The insurer may well have taken a 'view' on it, given the minor nature of the deviation from factory spec, but they would also be within their writes to cancel the policy, depending how the contract was written of course.  

The driver being completely unaware, and not unreasonably so?  The driver didn't modify the car, and is highly unlikely to take a car to bits to check that a part is missing.  Insurance declarations are largely done on a "reasonable belief" basis as it's unreasonable to expect people to take apart their house brick by brick or their car piece by piece to ensure that it's exactly as described.

We're never going to know for definite.  The whole thing is subjective and the chain of events necessary to provide the answer hasn't happened.  For that, the OP would need to make an insurance claim, have it refused and/or the policy cancelled owing to the modification, and then challenge the business in court.  It could fall down at any point, the key one being that the insurer is unlikely to refuse a claim or cancel a policy for something as minor as removal of the catalyst.  The point is that, dependant on how the policy was written of course, they may have the option to refuse.  One shouldn't attempt to place any store in a small modifications defence.  
The situation has been complicated somewhat by the fact that the OP now knows the car has been modified. 

p3ncilsharpener

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

Would the insurance really be invalid because a part had been removed without your knowledge?  I doubt it.

Seems like this should have been posted on the "I want to rant even though I'm wrong" board.

Yes it would; the onus is on the driver when it comes to declaring modifications.  The insurer may well have taken a 'view' on it, given the minor nature of the deviation from factory spec, but they would also be within their writes to cancel the policy, depending how the contract was written of course.  

The driver being completely unaware, and not unreasonably so?  The driver didn't modify the car, and is highly unlikely to take a car to bits to check that a part is missing.  Insurance declarations are largely done on a "reasonable belief" basis as it's unreasonable to expect people to take apart their house brick by brick or their car piece by piece to ensure that it's exactly as described.

We're never going to know for definite.  The whole thing is subjective and the chain of events necessary to provide the answer hasn't happened.  For that, the OP would need to make an insurance claim, have it refused and/or the policy cancelled owing to the modification, and then challenge the business in court.  It could fall down at any point, the key one being that the insurer is unlikely to refuse a claim or cancel a policy for something as minor as removal of the catalyst.  The point is that, dependant on how the policy was written of course, they may have the option to refuse.  One shouldn't attempt to place any store in a small modifications defence.  
The situation has been complicated somewhat by the fact that the OP now knows the car has been modified. 

So essentially "my insurance was invalid" is a bogus claim?

So we're in agreement that the OP's claims have no merit.

JJ_Egan

Yes both statements in the OP are false .

One as said MOT is not invalidated  and Two have insurance company declined to cover NO .

Thrugelmir

You bought a second hand car without inspecting it first? 

JJ_Egan

A lot do even from 200 miles away .

bris

Norman_Castle said:

Akt said:

Had I driven it and been involved in an accident then I could have been financially ruined - the insurance was invalid due to the modification not being known and declared.

The insurer would need to show the modifications were relevant to a claim. Unlikely a missing cat would affect a claim.

Not true, every insurance provider specifically asks if the car has had any modification, This is the owners responsibility. ignorance is no defence.

The missing CAT is a modification which would affect the policy either by an enhanced premium or by refusal to insure which is more likely. Insurers won't insure without a CAT and the police catch you without one it's a 1k fine so it's a big deal. They would only know it's missing, not who done it so the OP would be responsible.

p3ncilsharpener

bris said:

Norman_Castle said:

Akt said:

Had I driven it and been involved in an accident then I could have been financially ruined - the insurance was invalid due to the modification not being known and declared.

The insurer would need to show the modifications were relevant to a claim. Unlikely a missing cat would affect a claim.

Not true, every insurance provider specifically asks if the car has had any modification, This is the owners responsibility. ignorance is no defence.

The missing CAT is a modification which would affect the policy either by an enhanced premium or by refusal to insure which is more likely. Insurers won't insure without a CAT and the police catch you without one it's a 1k fine so it's a big deal. They would only know it's missing, not who done it so the OP would be responsible.

Nonsense.  The customer is only expected to take reasonable care to declare anything that needs to be declared.  Is it reasonable to check that every part of the car is still there in accordance with the manufacturer's spec? Of course not.

That's entirely different than say, a car that sounds like a supercar because an aftermarket exhaust was installed, where is "reasonable" to assume that something is a bit amiss when you can hardly hear yourself think due to the noise.

born_again

Odds on previous owner had cat stolen after MOT & just had pipe welded up. Which should be easy to spot. Or someone put a older exhaust pipe on that did not have a CAT as cheaper option.

Either way so long at it passes emission test it's not a problem & ins co would not care about it.

7 months usage & bushes gone.. On a 10 year old car pretty standard wear & tear. Were they shown as a advisory on previous MOT's (you did check this before buying?)

TBH. You should have asked for them to put 12 months MOT on it, then you would have known about the problems.

Fact they are prepared to refund cost is a winner. Take it and stop worrying about the next person that gets it. 👍