insurance companies don’t ask if you have Immobiliser or Dashcams

Goudy

Swiftcover offers (or did offer) new customers a discount for a dashcam, something like 10 to 12%.

It used to be any cam but I think they specified a Nextbase one after a while.

I remember being able to select a dashcam and it's make on the proposal at the time.
Plus my recent renewal proposal does state "Dashcam - other" (I never told them what make mine was).

I'm no longer a new customer so it probably makes no difference to them anymore.

400ixl

UncleZen said:

As mentioned, some insurers class a hardwired daschcam as a modification and could refuse to insure you in an accident.

Except they can't refuse to cover your claim. A dash cam cannot be a contributory factor to an accident so they can't use it as an excuse to deny a claim. About the only time they could is if someone broke into the care to only steal the dash cam. Even then the camera itself is no different whether hard wired or not as it is still usually a connecting plug on the camera end.

The RAC (as a broker) don't care if it is hard wired or not and do not require you to declare it either. Checked recently when doing quotes for DD's insurance. In fact none cared about whether it was hard wired or not and none counted it as a modification.

DullGreyGuy

400ixl said:

UncleZen said:

As mentioned, some insurers class a hardwired daschcam as a modification and could refuse to insure you in an accident.

Except they can't refuse to cover your claim. A dash cam cannot be a contributory factor to an accident so they can't use it as an excuse to deny a claim. About the only time they could is if someone broke into the care to only steal the dash cam. Even then the camera itself is no different whether hard wired or not as it is still usually a connecting plug on the camera end.

The RAC (as a broker) don't care if it is hard wired or not and do not require you to declare it either. Checked recently when doing quotes for DD's insurance. In fact none cared about whether it was hard wired or not and none counted it as a modification.

Yes they can, since CIDRA came into effect a false/non disclosure if deliberate or reckless allows the insurer to void the policy and avoid the claim irrespective of if its relevant to the claim or not.

If they accept it was careless then it comes down to if they would have insured you had you declared it

Nasqueron

DullGreyGuy said:

facade said:

Herzlos said:

facade said:

Be careful what you wish for with dashcams. They are highly stealable, so the risk of your car being broken into increases, and if you said you have a dashcam the insurer will get all huffy & puffy should you not have footage of your accident available.

Given how cheap most of them are now, and how they may be recording all the the time it's a bit risky looking to check, are they really that stealable?

I understand that the high end ones will presumably fetch a good price in the pub, but it's a lot of hassle/risk for a £10 from ebay unit.

You won't believe how hard a thief (usually an addict of some sort tbh) will work for pennies. Anyone less desperate would just get a paper round for less work, no risk and more money!

It's not really hard work though is it... make sure you've got your hoodie on, smash the side window, grab it, leg it. As you say, if it's properly mounted/wired in you just pull it hard enough and it will give. Nasqueron said:

Hoenir said:

Dashcam installation isn't going to stop you having an accident or making a claim for damage to your vehicle or somebody elses property. . 

They help also on the roundabout stye collisions where they often go 50/50 without evidence even when it's something weird like they try and go all the way around in the left lane without indicating or cut across from a straight ahead only lane

They can help and hinder... your customer tells you the third party cut the corner/drifted into their lane and caused the collision. The witness then shares their dashcam and it shows your policyholder actually drifted wide and went into the third party lane. The 50/50 has now turned into 100% your customers fault

Perhaps, maybe consumers check the footage to be careful before sending it in! I feel they are more help than anything when it's an unclear ding. 

I had one years ago as a witness, chap on a bicycle passed me on my bike and clipped a car turning, it wasn't really clear from the footage if he meant to turn or was swerving due to a car turning across the lane (driver stopped for a second then drove off as soon as the rider got up to go to their car, plate wasn't clear on the helmet footage). One thing I noticed which I mentioned to the insurer which most would not know, was that he was on an illegal fixie with no front brake - fact caught on camera when I was talking to him after to exchange details and I didn't notice until after!

400ixl

DullGreyGuy said:

400ixl said:

UncleZen said:

As mentioned, some insurers class a hardwired daschcam as a modification and could refuse to insure you in an accident.

Except they can't refuse to cover your claim. A dash cam cannot be a contributory factor to an accident so they can't use it as an excuse to deny a claim. About the only time they could is if someone broke into the care to only steal the dash cam. Even then the camera itself is no different whether hard wired or not as it is still usually a connecting plug on the camera end.

The RAC (as a broker) don't care if it is hard wired or not and do not require you to declare it either. Checked recently when doing quotes for DD's insurance. In fact none cared about whether it was hard wired or not and none counted it as a modification.

Yes they can, since CIDRA came into effect a false/non disclosure if deliberate or reckless allows the insurer to void the policy and avoid the claim irrespective of if its relevant to the claim or not.

If they accept it was careless then it comes down to if they would have insured you had you declared it

You are trying to take it to the far extreme. If they directly asked the question and you lied then yes. But that is not what is being discussed.

If they haven't asked the question then it can't be deliberate and if they are trying to go down the modification route they would have a pretty hard time convincing the regulators it was deliberate or reckless.

Lets have some reality and common sense applied.

DullGreyGuy

Nasqueron said:

DullGreyGuy said:

facade said:

Herzlos said:

facade said:

Be careful what you wish for with dashcams. They are highly stealable, so the risk of your car being broken into increases, and if you said you have a dashcam the insurer will get all huffy & puffy should you not have footage of your accident available.

Given how cheap most of them are now, and how they may be recording all the the time it's a bit risky looking to check, are they really that stealable?

I understand that the high end ones will presumably fetch a good price in the pub, but it's a lot of hassle/risk for a £10 from ebay unit.

You won't believe how hard a thief (usually an addict of some sort tbh) will work for pennies. Anyone less desperate would just get a paper round for less work, no risk and more money!

It's not really hard work though is it... make sure you've got your hoodie on, smash the side window, grab it, leg it. As you say, if it's properly mounted/wired in you just pull it hard enough and it will give. Nasqueron said:

Hoenir said:

Dashcam installation isn't going to stop you having an accident or making a claim for damage to your vehicle or somebody elses property. . 

They help also on the roundabout stye collisions where they often go 50/50 without evidence even when it's something weird like they try and go all the way around in the left lane without indicating or cut across from a straight ahead only lane

They can help and hinder... your customer tells you the third party cut the corner/drifted into their lane and caused the collision. The witness then shares their dashcam and it shows your policyholder actually drifted wide and went into the third party lane. The 50/50 has now turned into 100% your customers fault

Perhaps, maybe consumers check the footage to be careful before sending it in! I feel they are more help than anything when it's an unclear ding. 

I had one years ago as a witness, chap on a bicycle passed me on my bike and clipped a car turning, it wasn't really clear from the footage if he meant to turn or was swerving due to a car turning across the lane (driver stopped for a second then drove off as soon as the rider got up to go to their car, plate wasn't clear on the helmet footage). One thing I noticed which I mentioned to the insurer which most would not know, was that he was on an illegal fixie with no front brake - fact caught on camera when I was talking to him after to exchange details and I didn't notice until after!

We want the right outcome not the best outcome, if we know the policyholder has a dash cam we will ask for the footage and failing to provide it would breach the standard term of cooperating with is. If it shows that our client is at fault then we will admit fault, we won't pretend we didnt see it. Similar to if we get a witness details and what they tell us means our policyholder is at fault. 

In some cases its clearly that people simply dont know the case law on which claims are settled so they know what the video shows (eg them going round a blind bend and hitting a parked car) but they believe it shows the third party is liable when its not the case. 

400ixl said:

DullGreyGuy said:

400ixl said:

UncleZen said:

As mentioned, some insurers class a hardwired daschcam as a modification and could refuse to insure you in an accident.

Except they can't refuse to cover your claim. A dash cam cannot be a contributory factor to an accident so they can't use it as an excuse to deny a claim. About the only time they could is if someone broke into the care to only steal the dash cam. Even then the camera itself is no different whether hard wired or not as it is still usually a connecting plug on the camera end.

The RAC (as a broker) don't care if it is hard wired or not and do not require you to declare it either. Checked recently when doing quotes for DD's insurance. In fact none cared about whether it was hard wired or not and none counted it as a modification.

Yes they can, since CIDRA came into effect a false/non disclosure if deliberate or reckless allows the insurer to void the policy and avoid the claim irrespective of if its relevant to the claim or not.

If they accept it was careless then it comes down to if they would have insured you had you declared it

You are trying to take it to the far extreme. If they directly asked the question and you lied then yes. But that is not what is being discussed.

If they haven't asked the question then it can't be deliberate and if they are trying to go down the modification route they would have a pretty hard time convincing the regulators it was deliberate or reckless.

Lets have some reality and common sense applied.

Look at the FOS site, there are many cases where a policyholder has declared that the vehicle has no modifications and the FOS has deemed that it was at least careless for them to have not known based on the question (inc helper text) that was asked. 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4823460.pdf

Have a look at the above case, policy was void because the customer had wrapped their vehicle, customer tried to argue it wasnt a modification because its temporary and can be removed but the complaint wasn't upheld (there are a lot of not upheld complaints about wraps)

Similar with https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4849722.pdf where the customer had painted half his motor home a different colour, DVLA said they didnt needed to know, it was deemed reckless

There is a case where a dashcam was one of the post market modifications that hadn't been declared but it had been done by a prior owner and given the insurers own engineer didnt pick it up it was felt unfair to consider the customer should have realised it want standard fit - the engineer had picked up another mod of stickers/decals which had led to the further investigation and the voiding. The FOS in that case said it wasnt reasonable and so upheld the case. Obviously we can all speculate what may have happened if the engineer had identified the other matters as mods. 

400ixl

DullGreyGuy said:

400ixl said:

DullGreyGuy said:

400ixl said:

UncleZen said:

As mentioned, some insurers class a hardwired daschcam as a modification and could refuse to insure you in an accident.

Except they can't refuse to cover your claim. A dash cam cannot be a contributory factor to an accident so they can't use it as an excuse to deny a claim. About the only time they could is if someone broke into the care to only steal the dash cam. Even then the camera itself is no different whether hard wired or not as it is still usually a connecting plug on the camera end.

The RAC (as a broker) don't care if it is hard wired or not and do not require you to declare it either. Checked recently when doing quotes for DD's insurance. In fact none cared about whether it was hard wired or not and none counted it as a modification.

Yes they can, since CIDRA came into effect a false/non disclosure if deliberate or reckless allows the insurer to void the policy and avoid the claim irrespective of if its relevant to the claim or not.

If they accept it was careless then it comes down to if they would have insured you had you declared it

You are trying to take it to the far extreme. If they directly asked the question and you lied then yes. But that is not what is being discussed.

If they haven't asked the question then it can't be deliberate and if they are trying to go down the modification route they would have a pretty hard time convincing the regulators it was deliberate or reckless.

Lets have some reality and common sense applied.

Look at the FOS site, there are many cases where a policyholder has declared that the vehicle has no modifications and the FOS has deemed that it was at least careless for them to have not known based on the question (inc helper text) that was asked. 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4823460.pdf

Have a look at the above case, policy was void because the customer had wrapped their vehicle, customer tried to argue it wasnt a modification because its temporary and can be removed but the complaint wasn't upheld (there are a lot of not upheld complaints about wraps)

Similar with https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4849722.pdf where the customer had painted half his motor home a different colour, DVLA said they didnt needed to know, it was deemed reckless

There is a case where a dashcam was one of the post market modifications that hadn't been declared but it had been done by a prior owner and given the insurers own engineer didnt pick it up it was felt unfair to consider the customer should have realised it want standard fit - the engineer had picked up another mod of stickers/decals which had led to the further investigation and the voiding. The FOS in that case said it wasnt reasonable and so upheld the case. Obviously we can all speculate what may have happened if the engineer had identified the other matters as mods. 

So the short answer is no, you haven't any examples where a dash cam was deemed a deliberate or reckless case of not declaring a modification. I wasn't able to find any either.

Granted some things like a wrap are pretty damned obvious modifications, and those that would have resulted in the insurer not covering the vehicle then yes i can see that being the case.

DullGreyGuy

400ixl said:

DullGreyGuy said:

400ixl said:

DullGreyGuy said:

400ixl said:

UncleZen said:

As mentioned, some insurers class a hardwired daschcam as a modification and could refuse to insure you in an accident.

Except they can't refuse to cover your claim. A dash cam cannot be a contributory factor to an accident so they can't use it as an excuse to deny a claim. About the only time they could is if someone broke into the care to only steal the dash cam. Even then the camera itself is no different whether hard wired or not as it is still usually a connecting plug on the camera end.

The RAC (as a broker) don't care if it is hard wired or not and do not require you to declare it either. Checked recently when doing quotes for DD's insurance. In fact none cared about whether it was hard wired or not and none counted it as a modification.

Yes they can, since CIDRA came into effect a false/non disclosure if deliberate or reckless allows the insurer to void the policy and avoid the claim irrespective of if its relevant to the claim or not.

If they accept it was careless then it comes down to if they would have insured you had you declared it

You are trying to take it to the far extreme. If they directly asked the question and you lied then yes. But that is not what is being discussed.

If they haven't asked the question then it can't be deliberate and if they are trying to go down the modification route they would have a pretty hard time convincing the regulators it was deliberate or reckless.

Lets have some reality and common sense applied.

Look at the FOS site, there are many cases where a policyholder has declared that the vehicle has no modifications and the FOS has deemed that it was at least careless for them to have not known based on the question (inc helper text) that was asked. 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4823460.pdf

Have a look at the above case, policy was void because the customer had wrapped their vehicle, customer tried to argue it wasnt a modification because its temporary and can be removed but the complaint wasn't upheld (there are a lot of not upheld complaints about wraps)

Similar with https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4849722.pdf where the customer had painted half his motor home a different colour, DVLA said they didnt needed to know, it was deemed reckless

There is a case where a dashcam was one of the post market modifications that hadn't been declared but it had been done by a prior owner and given the insurers own engineer didnt pick it up it was felt unfair to consider the customer should have realised it want standard fit - the engineer had picked up another mod of stickers/decals which had led to the further investigation and the voiding. The FOS in that case said it wasnt reasonable and so upheld the case. Obviously we can all speculate what may have happened if the engineer had identified the other matters as mods. 

So the short answer is no, you haven't any examples where a dash cam was deemed a deliberate or reckless case of not declaring a modification. I wasn't able to find any either.

Granted some things like a wrap are pretty damned obvious modifications, and those that would have resulted in the insurer not covering the vehicle then yes i can see that being the case.

If you recall you stated:

Except they can't refuse to cover your claim. A dash cam cannot be a contributory factor to an accident so they can't use it as an excuse to deny a claim

I never said a dashcam itself would be cause for a voided policy however arguably a hardwire dash cam is a more permanent change than a wrap is. Both could increase the risk of thieves etc taking a liking to a car. What I said was that there doesn't have to be a contributory factor to the accident for the insurer to be able to deny the claim. Not only that but they can void the policy for the same. There are multiple recent threads with this urban myth stated and it is no longer true since CIDRA

Many of the cases are deemed careless rather than reckless because the vehicle was supplied with the modification already made. It's much more commonly deemed reckless when it's the policyholder themselves that made the modification. At the end of the day if the insurer wouldn't insure the vehicle had it been declared then there is no difference between careless and reckless so the insurer will go with the lower/easier to convince someone rating.