Car Accident

jack_tyler

Reginald74 said:

There's no induction kit on the engine in that photo.

exactly, so we dont know why they would say there is

BOWFER

jack_tyler said:

Reginald74 said:

There's no induction kit on the engine in that photo.

exactly, so we dont know why they would say there is

Not unless the airbox has been hacked up and the induction kit is inside what remains of the airbox.
So it looks standard on opening the bonnet.
It's like a gutted DPF, they look fine and legal from the outside but insides are ripped out.

KimJongUn88

BOWFER said:

jack_tyler said:

Reginald74 said:

There's no induction kit on the engine in that photo.

exactly, so we dont know why they would say there is

Not unless the airbox has been hacked up and the induction kit is inside what remains of the airbox.
So it looks standard on opening the bonnet.
It's like a gutted DPF, they look fine and legal from the outside but insides are ripped out.

So you’re telling us that any insurer’s basic presumption when faced with a photograph of an engine bay is that the air box contains an induction kit rather than a regular panel filter?

KimJongUn88

Evie44 said:

Insurers need to know if ceramic coated as its classed as a modification, as is having windows tinted if its not factory standard.

Absolute troll worthy rubbish.

jack_tyler

KimJongUn88 said:

BOWFER said:

jack_tyler said:

Reginald74 said:

There's no induction kit on the engine in that photo.

exactly, so we dont know why they would say there is

Not unless the airbox has been hacked up and the induction kit is inside what remains of the airbox.
So it looks standard on opening the bonnet.
It's like a gutted DPF, they look fine and legal from the outside but insides are ripped out.

So you’re telling us that any insurer’s basic presumption when faced with a photograph of an engine bay is that the air box contains an induction kit rather than a regular panel filter?

The insurers engineer has gone back to the car after my son asked for the valuation to be reconsidered, and apparently they have done a more indepth look, and thats when they have found these so called modifications. The photo of the engine bay was sent in after the 1st valuation to show the insurers how clean and looked after the car was

jack_tyler

BOWFER said:

jack_tyler said:

Reginald74 said:

There's no induction kit on the engine in that photo.

exactly, so we dont know why they would say there is

Not unless the airbox has been hacked up and the induction kit is inside what remains of the airbox.
So it looks standard on opening the bonnet.
It's like a gutted DPF, they look fine and legal from the outside but insides are ripped out.

Well if that is the case, my son had no idea of this. Obviously he looked under the bonnet before he bought the car, and it was how it looks in the photo, only a lot dirtier.

jack_tyler

Evie44 said:

Insurers need to know if ceramic coated as its classed as a modification, as is having windows tinted if its not factory standard.

This is not correct. A modification to a car is anything that is different from manufacturers standard specification, i.e. changing suspension, or engine upgrades, wheels etc. Protecting the paintwork by putting a ceramic coating on it, which is a bit like non stick in a frying pan, is not a modification as its not changing the car.

ontheroad1970

jack_tyler said:

Evie44 said:

Insurers need to know if ceramic coated as its classed as a modification, as is having windows tinted if its not factory standard.

This is not correct. A modification to a car is anything that is different from manufacturers standard specification, i.e. changing suspension, or engine upgrades, wheels etc. Protecting the paintwork by putting a ceramic coating on it, which is a bit like non stick in a frying pan, is not a modification as its not changing the car.

It is, however something that you would expect to be put right in a repairable shunt, so therefore it should be declared.

AdrianC

jack_tyler said:

Well if that is the case, my son had no idea of this. Obviously he looked under the bonnet before he bought the car, and it was how it looks in the photo, only a lot dirtier.

So that's not necessarily the underbonnet of HIS ACTUAL CAR?

Sandtree

jack_tyler said:

Evie44 said:

Insurers need to know if ceramic coated as its classed as a modification, as is having windows tinted if its not factory standard.

This is not correct. A modification to a car is anything that is different from manufacturers standard specification, i.e. changing suspension, or engine upgrades, wheels etc. Protecting the paintwork by putting a ceramic coating on it, which is a bit like non stick in a frying pan, is not a modification as its not changing the car.

The actual definition of modification varies between insurers... for most its a change made after production of the vehicle be that by the dealership or by the owner however Admiral for example include any optional extras included in the original purchase and so add the "AMG Kit" to a Mercedes and you have to declare to Admiral that its had its suspension lowered whereas most other insurers won't be interested. 

Unfortunately there are a lot of grey areas.