Update on Car Accident

Sandtree

Aretnap said:

Sandtree said:

jack_tyler said:

AdrianC said:

jack_tyler said:

The outcome as of Thurs this week,  is that the underwriters have voided his policy because they do not accept his explanation that he was unaware of these mods and that they must of been on the car when he bought it. They say this is because he made an enquiry around March/April about changing the air filter on the car for a lifetime one.
...
So he is more than a little angry because 1, the underwriters do not believe that the car was bought with the mods on, which begs the question why would you ring up to enquiry about changing an air filter, if you knew it already had one like that.

Or he got a quote for covering modifications to the car, didn't like it, but did the mod anyway.
That's clearly what they believe he did. And I'd suggest that's the most common reality in scenarios like this.

How does he prove the car was modified before he bought it? He can't.
Not unless he can get the person he bought it off to write a letter confirming the mods were present. The insurers may not even believe that.

When he first enquired about changing the air filter, he was told that the underwriters would not cover him for it, so he didn't do it. He  has tried to contact the previous owner but the number he has for them must of changed as it doesn't connect

This will be another big problem for you then... if the underwriter wouldn't have covered the modifications had they been declared they can still void the policy even if they accept the non-declaration was unintentional/innocent 

Only if the customer failed to take reasonable care to avoid making a misrepresentation. See CIDRA sections 2 and 4. There must be carelessness, at a minimum, on the consumer's part before the insurer is entitled to any remedy at all.

There are various cases where the FOS has ruled that failing to realise that a second hand car has been modified does not necessarily amount to carelessness, and they have ordered insurers to pay claims even where they would not have covered the modification at all has it been declared. 

There are also others to the contrary where the customer has said they didn't realise but the Ombudsman has said they should have and critically in many of the cases (in both directions), it says if you are uncertain you should be asking.  

Amusingly there are two near identical cases of a Range Rover modified by Overfinch being claimed for but insured as a standard Range Rover Sport with no mods. In both cases the customer stated they thought Overfinch was just a model of Range Rover. With the normal consistency of the Ombudsman in once case the complaint was upheld (a small claim for recovery costs) and in the other it wasn't upheld (a total loss with third party losses). The customer even said in one call she was concerned that the Overfinch extras weren't listed anywhere on the documents in the one that was upheld.  

Aretnap

Sandtree said:

Aretnap said:

Sandtree said:

jack_tyler said:

AdrianC said:

jack_tyler said:

The outcome as of Thurs this week,  is that the underwriters have voided his policy because they do not accept his explanation that he was unaware of these mods and that they must of been on the car when he bought it. They say this is because he made an enquiry around March/April about changing the air filter on the car for a lifetime one.
...
So he is more than a little angry because 1, the underwriters do not believe that the car was bought with the mods on, which begs the question why would you ring up to enquiry about changing an air filter, if you knew it already had one like that.

Or he got a quote for covering modifications to the car, didn't like it, but did the mod anyway.
That's clearly what they believe he did. And I'd suggest that's the most common reality in scenarios like this.

How does he prove the car was modified before he bought it? He can't.
Not unless he can get the person he bought it off to write a letter confirming the mods were present. The insurers may not even believe that.

When he first enquired about changing the air filter, he was told that the underwriters would not cover him for it, so he didn't do it. He  has tried to contact the previous owner but the number he has for them must of changed as it doesn't connect

This will be another big problem for you then... if the underwriter wouldn't have covered the modifications had they been declared they can still void the policy even if they accept the non-declaration was unintentional/innocent 

Only if the customer failed to take reasonable care to avoid making a misrepresentation. See CIDRA sections 2 and 4. There must be carelessness, at a minimum, on the consumer's part before the insurer is entitled to any remedy at all.

There are various cases where the FOS has ruled that failing to realise that a second hand car has been modified does not necessarily amount to carelessness, and they have ordered insurers to pay claims even where they would not have covered the modification at all has it been declared. 

There are also others to the contrary where the customer has said they didn't realise but the Ombudsman has said they should have and critically in many of the cases (in both directions), it says if you are uncertain you should be asking.  

Amusingly there are two near identical cases of a Range Rover modified by Overfinch being claimed for but insured as a standard Range Rover Sport with no mods. In both cases the customer stated they thought Overfinch was just a model of Range Rover. With the normal consistency of the Ombudsman in once case the complaint was upheld (a small claim for recovery costs) and in the other it wasn't upheld (a total loss with third party losses). The customer even said in one call she was concerned that the Overfinch extras weren't listed anywhere on the documents in the one that was upheld.  

Indeed, obviously the judgement on whether a consumer has taken reasonable care depends on the specifics of the case, including things like how obvious the modifications were (or should have been). And inevitably there's going to be a grey area where different adjudicators will have different views on whether a customer should have realised that the car had been modified.

My point was that in this type of case "we wouldn't have insured it had we known about the modification" is not a get out of jail free card for the insurer - it's irrelevant if the Ombudsman thinks that the customer could not have reasonably been expected to know about the modification. I read your last post as suggesting otherwise. 

Grumpy_chap

Given how "in your face" OVERFINCH mods tend to be, claiming unaware is quite a stretch tbh.

AdrianC

Grumpy_chap said:

Given how "in your face" OVERFINCH mods tend to be, claiming unaware is quite a stretch tbh.

Ah, the days when Overfinch just shoved Chevy v8s in (proper) RRs, rather than being a blingporium for 2nd division footballer's WAGs.

Retrogamer

From the previous thread and the pictures supplied i had advised that i seen no modifications present.

I had requested additional pictures to help you mount a defence or response / explanation to them. It's possible the engineer who inspected the car was wrong.

The fact they mentioned aftermarket induction kit on the report raises flags to me, as there is 100% none on that vehicle. An aftermarket air filter element perhaps. But an induction kit, there is not

AdrianC

Retrogamer said:

From the previous thread and the pictures supplied i had advised that i seen no modifications present.
...
The fact they mentioned aftermarket induction kit on the report raises flags to me, as there is 100% none on that vehicle. An aftermarket air filter element perhaps. But an induction kit, there is not

None in the photo posted in the other thread, which I think the OP was implying came from the ad the son bought the car from.

Sandtree

Aretnap said:

Sandtree said:

Aretnap said:

Sandtree said:

jack_tyler said:

AdrianC said:

jack_tyler said:

The outcome as of Thurs this week,  is that the underwriters have voided his policy because they do not accept his explanation that he was unaware of these mods and that they must of been on the car when he bought it. They say this is because he made an enquiry around March/April about changing the air filter on the car for a lifetime one.
...
So he is more than a little angry because 1, the underwriters do not believe that the car was bought with the mods on, which begs the question why would you ring up to enquiry about changing an air filter, if you knew it already had one like that.

Or he got a quote for covering modifications to the car, didn't like it, but did the mod anyway.
That's clearly what they believe he did. And I'd suggest that's the most common reality in scenarios like this.

How does he prove the car was modified before he bought it? He can't.
Not unless he can get the person he bought it off to write a letter confirming the mods were present. The insurers may not even believe that.

When he first enquired about changing the air filter, he was told that the underwriters would not cover him for it, so he didn't do it. He  has tried to contact the previous owner but the number he has for them must of changed as it doesn't connect

This will be another big problem for you then... if the underwriter wouldn't have covered the modifications had they been declared they can still void the policy even if they accept the non-declaration was unintentional/innocent 

Only if the customer failed to take reasonable care to avoid making a misrepresentation. See CIDRA sections 2 and 4. There must be carelessness, at a minimum, on the consumer's part before the insurer is entitled to any remedy at all.

There are various cases where the FOS has ruled that failing to realise that a second hand car has been modified does not necessarily amount to carelessness, and they have ordered insurers to pay claims even where they would not have covered the modification at all has it been declared. 

There are also others to the contrary where the customer has said they didn't realise but the Ombudsman has said they should have and critically in many of the cases (in both directions), it says if you are uncertain you should be asking.  

Amusingly there are two near identical cases of a Range Rover modified by Overfinch being claimed for but insured as a standard Range Rover Sport with no mods. In both cases the customer stated they thought Overfinch was just a model of Range Rover. With the normal consistency of the Ombudsman in once case the complaint was upheld (a small claim for recovery costs) and in the other it wasn't upheld (a total loss with third party losses). The customer even said in one call she was concerned that the Overfinch extras weren't listed anywhere on the documents in the one that was upheld.  

Indeed, obviously the judgement on whether a consumer has taken reasonable care depends on the specifics of the case, including things like how obvious the modifications were (or should have been). And inevitably there's going to be a grey area where different adjudicators will have different views on whether a customer should have realised that the car had been modified.

My point was that in this type of case "we wouldn't have insured it had we known about the modification" is not a get out of jail free card for the insurer - it's irrelevant if the Ombudsman thinks that the customer could not have reasonably been expected to know about the modification. I read your last post as suggesting otherwise. 

To be pedantic, as these are published outcomes they a from ombudsman not adjudicators   

My previous post highlighted that given they’ve explicitly stated they wouldn’t insure had the mods been declared isnt a good sign but any time you go to the ombudsman it’s a roll of the dice. Would have been much easier if they’d said a 30% premium increase as then your on a better path to some level of payout 

sheramber

AdrianC said:

Retrogamer said:

From the previous thread and the pictures supplied i had advised that i seen no modifications present.
...
The fact they mentioned aftermarket induction kit on the report raises flags to me, as there is 100% none on that vehicle. An aftermarket air filter element perhaps. But an induction kit, there is not

None in the photo posted in the other thread, which I think the OP was implying came from the ad the son bought the car from.

I don't think so

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

Retrogamer

Sandtree said:

Aretnap said:

Sandtree said:

Aretnap said:

Sandtree said:

jack_tyler said:

AdrianC said:

jack_tyler said:

The outcome as of Thurs this week,  is that the underwriters have voided his policy because they do not accept his explanation that he was unaware of these mods and that they must of been on the car when he bought it. They say this is because he made an enquiry around March/April about changing the air filter on the car for a lifetime one.
...
So he is more than a little angry because 1, the underwriters do not believe that the car was bought with the mods on, which begs the question why would you ring up to enquiry about changing an air filter, if you knew it already had one like that.

Or he got a quote for covering modifications to the car, didn't like it, but did the mod anyway.
That's clearly what they believe he did. And I'd suggest that's the most common reality in scenarios like this.

How does he prove the car was modified before he bought it? He can't.
Not unless he can get the person he bought it off to write a letter confirming the mods were present. The insurers may not even believe that.

When he first enquired about changing the air filter, he was told that the underwriters would not cover him for it, so he didn't do it. He  has tried to contact the previous owner but the number he has for them must of changed as it doesn't connect

This will be another big problem for you then... if the underwriter wouldn't have covered the modifications had they been declared they can still void the policy even if they accept the non-declaration was unintentional/innocent 

Only if the customer failed to take reasonable care to avoid making a misrepresentation. See CIDRA sections 2 and 4. There must be carelessness, at a minimum, on the consumer's part before the insurer is entitled to any remedy at all.

There are various cases where the FOS has ruled that failing to realise that a second hand car has been modified does not necessarily amount to carelessness, and they have ordered insurers to pay claims even where they would not have covered the modification at all has it been declared. 

There are also others to the contrary where the customer has said they didn't realise but the Ombudsman has said they should have and critically in many of the cases (in both directions), it says if you are uncertain you should be asking.  

Amusingly there are two near identical cases of a Range Rover modified by Overfinch being claimed for but insured as a standard Range Rover Sport with no mods. In both cases the customer stated they thought Overfinch was just a model of Range Rover. With the normal consistency of the Ombudsman in once case the complaint was upheld (a small claim for recovery costs) and in the other it wasn't upheld (a total loss with third party losses). The customer even said in one call she was concerned that the Overfinch extras weren't listed anywhere on the documents in the one that was upheld.  

Indeed, obviously the judgement on whether a consumer has taken reasonable care depends on the specifics of the case, including things like how obvious the modifications were (or should have been). And inevitably there's going to be a grey area where different adjudicators will have different views on whether a customer should have realised that the car had been modified.

My point was that in this type of case "we wouldn't have insured it had we known about the modification" is not a get out of jail free card for the insurer - it's irrelevant if the Ombudsman thinks that the customer could not have reasonably been expected to know about the modification. I read your last post as suggesting otherwise. 

To be pedantic, as these are published outcomes they a from ombudsman not adjudicators   

My previous post highlighted that given they’ve explicitly stated they wouldn’t insure had the mods been declared isnt a good sign but any time you go to the ombudsman it’s a roll of the dice. Would have been much easier if they’d said a 30% premium increase as then your on a better path to some level of payout 

This is assuming the car actually has been modified, stickers aside.