Car Insurance charges for modifications,

Lou_Lou_kia

Some advice needed if anyone can help me. I've had an accident where a driver has run into the back of my car, (fault of the other driver - possibly uninsured!). While my car was being inspected by my insurance company they have informed me that the wheels on the car are not standard and that I should have informed them of that. I have explained to them that I didn't realise they weren't standard, but they are still saying that before they'll deal any more with my claim I have to pay £140 and they will also be increasing my excess from £450 to £700. The car is a Peugeot 206 GTI and comes with alloy wheels any way, and the ones on the car now they say are worth approx £400, so I would say they're cheaper than what should be on there anyway. My argument to them is, I bought the car with those wheels on it, and I can't tell them they're not standard if I don't know, but they're sticking to their guns. Do you think I should just pay the extra £140, or could I persue through the Ombudsman as it seems a steep charge to me. I think they are exploiting the fact that I have to pay this now because there's a claim pending, and they've slapped an admin charge on me for not informing them before. I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable charge, but they're just being greedy. They've said it wouldn't probably be an issue if the wheels were the same size as what would be on there anyway, and their insurance inspector said they should be 15". I've spoken to Peugeot who aren't sure themselves what size wheels it would have on it, but say definitely not 15", either 16" or 17" come on the GTI. So the insurance estimator doesn't even correctly know what size wheels should be on it! If he struggles to know, how am I supposed to know these things eh! Any advice is appreciated as I'm at the end of my tether now.

raskazz

On the circumstances you describe it sounds as if they are dealing with the situation correctly.

When you set the policy up either a question would have been asked along the lines of 'Has the car been modified or altered in any way or had any optional extras added?' [or an online quotation engine may have informed you that they are assuming the car has not been modified and altered and if it has then they will not quote]. Note that the question does not limit itself to changes that you personally have made to the car, so the fact that you bought the car with the wheels already fitted is not really relevant.

What the insurer is doing is not 'being greedy', it is quite correctly offering to continue cover only subject to 'rewriting' the policy - i.e. collecting the premium that would have been payable (and applying the excess that would have been applicable) had you correctly disclosed the alloy wheels. This is entirely in line with the FOS's guidance on the subject. You should be thankful that you are not claiming a few years ago before the FSA / FOS regime was inforce, because in those days you would have had no cover at all.

To look at it another way, if you were one of the other policyholders with the same insurer, do you want your premiums rising because other policyholders cannot answer questions correctly and pay the appropriate premiums for the risk?

Futhermore, the fact that the GTI comes with alloy wheels anyway is again irrelevant, what matters is that the alloys are non-standard. The value of the alloys is not the insurer's concern, what they are concerned with is the attractiveness of the car to theives, changes in performance, and what they call 'moral hazard' i.e. the attitude of drivers who drive modified cars.

Your argument that you 'did not know' is a weak one - surely one would recognise non-standard alloys on today's cars (especially if they are not Peugeot branded) - or at least check the car over or ask a knowlegable friend or relative if you are completing an insurance proposal and get asked a question on modifications.

What year of manufacture is your car? Then we can find out what size wheels should be fitted. I'm fairly certain that the 206 GTI's from the 1990s at least had 15" wheels.

Incisor

raskazz wrote: »

On the circumstances you describe it sounds as if they are dealing with the situation correctly.

When you set the policy up either a question would have been asked along the lines of 'Has the car been modified or altered in any way or had any optional extras added?' [or an online quotation engine may have informed you that they are assuming the car has not been modified and altered and if it has then they will not quote]. Note that the question does not limit itself to changes that you personally have made to the car, so the fact that you bought the car with the wheels already fitted is not really relevant.

What the insurer is doing is not 'being greedy', it is quite correctly offering to continue cover only subject to 'rewriting' the policy - i.e. collecting the premium that would have been payable (and applying the excess that would have been applicable) had you correctly disclosed the alloy wheels. This is entirely in line with the FOS's guidance on the subject. You should be thankful that you are not claiming a few years ago before the FSA / FOS regime was inforce, because in those days you would have had no cover at all.

To look at it another way, if you were one of the other policyholders with the same insurer, do you want your premiums rising because other policyholders cannot answer questions correctly and pay the appropriate premiums for the risk?

Futhermore, the fact that the GTI comes with alloy wheels anyway is again irrelevant, what matters is that the alloys are non-standard. The value of the alloys is not the insurer's concern, what they are concerned with is the attractiveness of the car to theives, changes in performance, and what they call 'moral hazard' i.e. the attitude of drivers who drive modified cars.

Your argument that you 'did not know' is a weak one - surely one would recognise non-standard alloys on today's cars (especially if they are not Peugeot branded) - or at least check the car over or ask a knowlegable friend or relative if you are completing an insurance proposal and get asked a question on modifications.

What year of manufacture is your car? Then we can find out what size wheels should be fitted. I'm fairly certain that the 206 GTI's from the 1990s at least had 15" wheels.

The insurance info was provided in good faith and was true to best of knowledge and belief, so I assume. I believe that this should be referred to the ombudsman. The more these nitpicking reasons not to pay out are allowed to stand, the more we will all be damaged by insurance companies looking for ways to weasel out of paying their due.

Yes, they might not be the right wheels, but how is the ordinary person able to tell?

raskazz

Incisor wrote: »

The insurance info was provided in good faith and was true to best of knowledge and belief, so I assume.I believe that this should be referred to the ombudsman.

Why should it be referred to the Ombudsman? The insurer is dealing with the case in line with the Ombusdman's own stated guidelines:

inadvertent
A customer may also have acted in good faith if their non-disclosure is made inadvertently. These are the most difficult cases to determine and involve distinguishing between behaviour that is merely careless and that which amounts to recklessness. Both are forms of negligence.
Inadvertence occurs when the customer unintentionally misleads the insurer. This can occur just by failing to read and check the questions and answers thoroughly enough. When this happens there is no breach of the duty of utmost good faith.
For example, a policy application may contain a clear question about motoring convictions and penalty points. The customer discloses a careless-driving conviction but fails to disclose that they have three penalty points for speeding. In that situation, we might believe that the customer genuinely overlooked his conviction. The customer clearly did not intend to mislead the insurer because he disclosed the more serious offence; he simply failed to realise that penalty points were also part of the question. So the insurer should act as it would have done if it had been in possession of the full facts.
Where there has been inadvertent non-disclosure or misrepresentation, we expect insurers to rewrite the insurance. This should be done on the terms they would originally have offered if they had been aware of all the information. In some cases this may result in a proportionate payment; in others it may result in no payment at all. This is because the inadvertently-withheld information would, if disclosed, have led to the firm declining the application altogether.

Incisor wrote: »

The more these nitpicking reasons not to pay out are allowed to stand, the more we will all be damaged by insurance companies looking for ways to weasel out of paying their due.

They aren't refusing to pay, they are quite clearly willing to pay subject to the insured paying them the correct premium and accepting the terms that would have been offered had the proposer disclosed all the relevant information.

As a policyholder who is totally honest with my insurer, I don't expect my premiums to subsidise the indemnity of others who do not pay the right premium for the risk.

Incisor wrote: »

Yes, they might not be the right wheels, but how is the ordinary person able to tell?

We don't have the full information to go on, but as I mentioned, I think it would definitely be reasonble to expect disclosure if the wheels were non-Peugeot.

losgiganteskid

raskazz wrote: »

As a policyholder who is totally honest with my insurer, I don't expect my premiums to subsidise the indemnity of others who do not pay the right premium for the risk.

That's rather a hypocritical statement when you declared on another thread that a close member of your family had been less than truthful when "they" applied for insurance !! :rolleyes:

raskazz

losgiganteskid wrote: »

That's rather a hypocritical statement when you declared on another thread that a close member of your family had been less than truthful when "they" applied for insurance !! :rolleyes:

When did I ever say anything of the sort? I certainly don't recall saying this. Please back up such allegations with a link or withdraw them please, before I report you to the board moderator. Accusing someone of being hypocritical without any evidence is poor form.

If you are referring to this thread:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=905653

Then you are being foolish in the extreme. If you can read, you would recognise that the declared figures were overestimates of the value in order to avoid any problem of underinsurance. In other words, if anything, the premium paid would be higher than necessary; and there is no breach of utmost good faith as this would be an overestimate of the risk not an underestimate.

Lou_Lou_kia

I understand in part what you are saying, however, do you think that everyone is an expert on car's? I am a middle aged woman who has never caused an accident, or had to claim off of my insurance, and I am an honest person! If I had known about the wheels, I would have told them.

1. "the attitude of drivers who drive modified cars"
As I said, I am a middle aged woman and do not have an attitude. I bought a car I liked the look of and that was that.

"Your argument that you 'did not know' is a weak one - surely one would recognise non-standard alloys on today's cars (especially if they are not Peugeot branded) - or at least check the car over or ask a knowlegable friend or relative if you are completing an insurance proposal and get asked a question on modifications."
Why would I know what wheels would come on a GTI car? I've never had one before. It didn't look like it had been dressed up. It's not full or stickers or spoilers. The wheels aren't even fancy wheels. On a plus side, I suppose I've learned a bit about the Peugeot car now! I still believe the insurance company are being greedy, and are not collecting the fee which would have been payable, as I have had a quote from another well known insurance company who are quoting me much less, and that's including the modified wheels.

"What year of manufacture is your car? Then we can find out what size wheels should be fitted. I'm fairly certain that the 206 GTI's from the 1990s at least had 15" wheels.[/quote]"
The year of manufacture is 2000. Peugeot can't even tell me for definate what size wheels it comes with. All depends on brake horse power apparently, which isn't stated anywhere on the log book or even on the engine. Now I need to become expert in that too!

Thanks for your advice anyway. I've paid the amount for now and will look into it more once my claim has gone through.

On another note. I'm not having a repair done to my car because I've caused an accident, or have an attitude behind the wheel. I've been hit by another careless driver who it appears may have given me false details!

raskazz wrote: »

On the circumstances you describe it sounds as if they are dealing with the situation correctly.

When you set the policy up either a question would have been asked along the lines of 'Has the car been modified or altered in any way or had any optional extras added?' [or an online quotation engine may have informed you that they are assuming the car has not been modified and altered and if it has then they will not quote]. Note that the question does not limit itself to changes that you personally have made to the car, so the fact that you bought the car with the wheels already fitted is not really relevant.

What the insurer is doing is not 'being greedy', it is quite correctly offering to continue cover only subject to 'rewriting' the policy - i.e. collecting the premium that would have been payable (and applying the excess that would have been applicable) had you correctly disclosed the alloy wheels. This is entirely in line with the FOS's guidance on the subject. You should be thankful that you are not claiming a few years ago before the FSA / FOS regime was inforce, because in those days you would have had no cover at all.

To look at it another way, if you were one of the other policyholders with the same insurer, do you want your premiums rising because other policyholders cannot answer questions correctly and pay the appropriate premiums for the risk?

Futhermore, the fact that the GTI comes with alloy wheels anyway is again irrelevant, what matters is that the alloys are non-standard. The value of the alloys is not the insurer's concern, what they are concerned with is the attractiveness of the car to theives, changes in performance, and what they call 'moral hazard' i.e. the attitude of drivers who drive modified cars.

Your argument that you 'did not know' is a weak one - surely one would recognise non-standard alloys on today's cars (especially if they are not Peugeot branded) - or at least check the car over or ask a knowlegable friend or relative if you are completing an insurance proposal and get asked a question on modifications.

What year of manufacture is your car? Then we can find out what size wheels should be fitted. I'm fairly certain that the 206 GTI's from the 1990s at least had 15" wheels.

losgiganteskid

raskazz wrote: »

When did I ever say anything of the sort?

This is when:- http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=939845

Your post 6 @ 5.16 on 28 May 2008 - I rest my case

Quentin

Good answer - though how could he have "forgotten" about this??

(And wonder why post 7 in the same link went by without a murmur?)

raskazz

losgiganteskid wrote: »

This is when:- http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=939845

Your post 6 @ 5.16 on 28 May 2008 - I rest my case

Ah, that one - I do not (and did not) condone him or anyone else doing that, in fact if you read the post I was using that example as a reason why a lot of insurers - quite rightly - don't accept company car driving as equivalent NCD.

Given that I was 14 at the time, had nothing to do with the situation, and agree with the general principle that one shouldn't visit the sins of the father on the son, accusing me of 'hyposcrisy' based on that is still bang out of order. It might be hypocritical if I had endorsed such behaviour, but I never did - perhaps you should look up 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary. I rest my case.

It went by without a murmur Quentin because I don't read every single post on the forum, strange as that may seem.

raskazz

To get back on topic for a moment, to the OP:

Please don't get me wrong - I am not saying that you personally have 'an attitude' or are a poor driver or anything else - I don't know you! What I do know is why insurers have certain attitudes to vehicles that have been changed from the standard spec. I also honestly sympathise if the third party has slipped you some false information, such behaviour is beneath contempt and I hope he or she is traced.

But fundamentally you have to take responsibility for your actions - most rational people would hold their hands up and say 'OK, I didn't check the car before answering the insurer's questions, that's life. I'll deal with this insurer's request and be much more alert in the future now I've learned the hard way'.

I guess as I work in insurance it is very difficult to constantly see people who automatically assume that insurers are 'ripping you off' when the vast majority of insurers deal with customers fairly and correctly. There is no evidence at all that the insurer is being greedy - run a quote with the wheels on one of the comparison sites and check all the prices - if your insurer is harsh on modifications it could go from top of the pile without the alloys listed to bottom of the pile with them listed!

On the size of the wheels - you could try this forum, they seem to have quite a bit of technical know-how:

http://www.206info.co.uk/ForumsPro/