Delcaring mods to insurers

Matt82 · 30 Sep 2007 at 18:46

with regard to alarms, i put a cat 1 on my golf shortly before renewal, told elephant.. the only options they have for alarm is

immobiliser
tracker
tracker and immobiliser

the golf comes with a lame immobiliser as standard, but after after adding a cat 1 alarm and immobiliser, im still in the same catagory for security.

lordrobs · 30 Sep 2007 at 21:20

Joe T said:
I found Greenlight fantastic (read £400 cheaper) for my remapped 330d.

Loads of people say that greenlight are good but the beggers won't cover my car :mad:

fRostiE · 1 Oct 2007 at 12:43

Durzel said:
...so you tell them about a set of alloys, they charge you extra for letting them know/increasing the value of the car, but if the wheels got nicked you'd only get a standard set of alloys as replacements!

out of interest, what happens if your in an accident and its your fault, youve modded your car but not told them about it (say - alloys) what happens then?

technically i guess to police and that your car is not uninsured, but is it classed as not being insured to the correct level?

Pyscho_Si · 1 Oct 2007 at 12:51

fRostiE said:
out of interest, what happens if your in an accident and its your fault, youve modded your car but not told them about it (say - alloys) what happens then?

technically i guess to police and that your car is not uninsured, but is it classed as not being insured to the correct level?

You would be done for driving without insurance as your insurance company would void your policy for not declaring information to the underwriter. You would be in heaps of trouble and if it is a big accident it could cost you a fortune.

mark66 · 1 Oct 2007 at 13:06

Joe T said:
I found Greenlight fantastic (read £400 cheaper) for my remapped 330d.

Yeah Greenlight only wanted an extra £15 a year to insure my Ibiza Cupra had I remaped it (+55bhp). Admiral wanted an extra £450!

Muncher · 1 Oct 2007 at 13:24

Pyscho_Si said:
You would be done for driving without insurance as your insurance company would void your policy for not declaring information to the underwriter.

Sorry, but what is the basis for asserting that?

The Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it clear that when a policy is issued and a claim is rejected or the policy terminated by an insurer then the insurer still has to indemnify third parties under the act. Therefore, if a policy is taken out and you have not been told it is terminated then you cannot possibly be prosecuted for lack of insurance.

Shadez · 1 Oct 2007 at 13:27

Pyscho_Si said:
You would be done for driving without insurance as your insurance company would void your policy for not declaring information to the underwriter. You would be in heaps of trouble and if it is a big accident it could cost you a fortune.

Not true, the insurance company MUST payout all 3rd party claims. What they will do is wriggle out of payout for your damages.

By law an insurance company cannot remove their 3rd party obligation without first informing you by post.

Fr0dders · 1 Oct 2007 at 14:24

Pyscho_Si said:
You would be done for driving without insurance as your insurance company would void your policy for not declaring information to the underwriter. You would be in heaps of trouble and if it is a big accident it could cost you a fortune.

why does this tripe allways get posted

as two people have already said, your insurers have a legal obligation to pay. the worst they would probably do, is work out how much the alloys added to your premium, then backdate it to the start of the policy and charge you the extra.

assuming your car wasnt in a state to drive it home and change them back before it went into the garage of course

Pyscho_Si · 1 Oct 2007 at 15:05

MrLOL said:
why does this tripe allways get posted

as two people have already said, your insurers have a legal obligation to pay. the worst they would probably do, is work out how much the alloys added to your premium, then backdate it to the start of the policy and charge you the extra.

assuming your car wasnt in a state to drive it home and change them back before it went into the garage of course

The policy would become 'void ab initio' …i.e the policy never existed! I’m assuming therefore you would be done for driving without insurance?

Giving incorrect information is called 'nondisclosure of material fact' and is considered to be fraud. (see the theft act). I would also assume the insurance company would chase your for the 3rd party repairs/costs?

Really not a great ideal having incorrect insurance.

Muncher · 1 Oct 2007 at 16:08

Pyscho_Si said:
The policy would become 'void ab initio' …i.e the policy never existed! I’m assuming therefore you would be done for driving without insurance?

Giving incorrect information is called 'nondisclosure of material fact' and is considered to be fraud. (see the theft act). I would also assume the insurance company would chase your for the 3rd party repairs/costs?

Really not a great ideal having incorrect insurance.

The contract in certain circumstances may be void ab initio, but the Road Traffic Act provides an exception for that, meaning the party is still insured against 3rd party risks.

The correct offence is actually "Obtaining a Pecuniary Advantage by Deception" S16 Theft Act 1968.

You also mention 'nondisclosure of material fact' - the key being that a fact is "material". Did the answer to that clear question induce the insurer; that is, did it influence the insurer’s decision to enter into the contract at all, or to do so under terms and conditions that it otherwise would not have accepted?

fRostiE · 1 Oct 2007 at 16:15

Pyscho_Si said:
The policy would become 'void ab initio' …i.e the policy never existed! I’m assuming therefore you would be done for driving without insurance?

Giving incorrect information is called 'nondisclosure of material fact' and is considered to be fraud. (see the theft act). I would also assume the insurance company would chase your for the 3rd party repairs/costs?

Really not a great ideal having incorrect insurance.

what if, the information provided was accurate at the time but alloys were added later and say, forgot to update them

Shadez · 1 Oct 2007 at 16:18

Pyscho_Si said:
The policy would become 'void ab initio' …i.e the policy never existed! I’m assuming therefore you would be done for driving without insurance?

Giving incorrect information is called 'nondisclosure of material fact' and is considered to be fraud. (see the theft act). I would also assume the insurance company would chase your for the 3rd party repairs/costs?

Really not a great ideal having incorrect insurance.

The RTA 1988 stops this from happening, i would prove it but looking at the act i would need a law degree to understand the thing.

[TW]Fox · 1 Oct 2007 at 16:33

Muncher said:
You also mention 'nondisclosure of material fact' - the key being that a fact is "material". Did the answer to that clear question induce the insurer; that is, did it influence the insurer’s decision to enter into the contract at all, or to do so under terms and conditions that it otherwise would not have accepted?

And I believe it to be the case that if the answer to that question is 'no', void ab inito cannot take place. Only if the insurer can say they would not have insured the risk had they known the additional material facts can they void, excepting of course the obligations under the RTA.

My opinion, not fact, etc.

Bikerz · 1 Oct 2007 at 18:17

I dont know about this mods without declearing. A mate crashed his clio, other driver at fault and they admited it. But he didnt decleare his wheels or k and N air filter and his car was a right off and he didnt recive a penny even tho his incurance company wernt paying out it was other persons. So Im always declearing my mods

[TW]Fox · 1 Oct 2007 at 18:20

Bikerz said:
I dont know about this mods without declearing. A mate crashed his clio, other driver at fault and they admited it. But he didnt decleare his wheels or k and N air filter and his car was a right off and he didnt recive a penny even tho his incurance company wernt paying out it was other persons.

I'm calling BS on this one. He insured status is absolutely irrelevent in a non fault accident as its nothing to do with his insurance company.

The details of a civil contract between him and his insurer is of no interest or business to the third parties insurer following a non fault accident. Even if you have no insurance you can still receive a payout from a third parties insurer in the event of a non fault accident.

Buckster · 1 Oct 2007 at 18:23

what happens if you remove something ...

ie my car has a resonator .. does nothing much more than quieten the engine a bit .. if you remove it - is it a mod ?

Muncher · 1 Oct 2007 at 18:36

[TW]Fox;10190758 said:
I'm calling BS on this one. He insured status is absolutely irrelevent in a non fault accident as its nothing to do with his insurance company.

The details of a civil contract between him and his insurer is of no interest or business to the third parties insurer following a non fault accident. Even if you have no insurance you can still receive a payout from a third parties insurer in the event of a non fault accident.

Agreed.

Pyscho_Si · 1 Oct 2007 at 20:06

fRostiE said:
what if, the information provided was accurate at the time but alloys were added later and say, forgot to update them

I expect somewhere in your policy it states you must inform them of any changes such as mods, job change, mileage increase etc.

Bikerz · 1 Oct 2007 at 20:42

[TW]Fox;10190758 said:
I'm calling BS on this one. He insured status is absolutely irrelevent in a non fault accident as its nothing to do with his insurance company.

The details of a civil contract between him and his insurer is of no interest or business to the third parties insurer following a non fault accident. Even if you have no insurance you can still receive a payout from a third parties insurer in the event of a non fault accident.

I would agree, but then I cant arguee seeing as he lost 1.5k worth of car

[TW]Fox · 1 Oct 2007 at 20:50

Bikerz said:
I would agree, but then I cant arguee seeing as he lost 1.5k worth of car

No, he told you he lost 1.5k worth of car. No idea why he'd lie. Perhaps he lost it for something else and came up with a BS story to save face.