Notify Your Insurance Company for Winter Steels

[KayakJim]

Satan!

Thats made my day!! :rofl: Been sat here in my sick bed all this week and feel much better now

[Babs]

No problem

[simonsheil]

The insurance company would have to show that by not notifying them off the change you increased the risk to them.

As you are adding a safety feature I think they would be hard pressed, and again with steel wheels I think they would be hard pressed to show that the failure to disclose had increased their risk.

[Hauptmann]

Interesting thread. I get the impression that insurance companies are tyring to increase income and reject claims for very flimsy reasons.

My wife's Fabia II is running Snowtracs on an extra set of alloys we have. She called our insurer and they have no problem with that, but if we had been running of steel wheels they would have increased the premium because 'we changed the specification'?? So it seems you have to stay with whatever kind of metal the car was supplied on. Seems total nonsense to me.

[cheezemonkhai]

Interesting after asking for it to be raised to a complaint regarding the insurance, I have had a call back stating that it would be noted and not chargeable for running steel wheels over the winter months.

I've asked for confirmation of this in writing and will post back as soon as I have this confirmation.

Edited 14 January, 2010 by cheezemonkhai

[expostmanpat]

Which all brings up the question of Snow Socks.

If you have an accident whilst using them are you insured? Do you have to ring the insurers every time you put them on, and 5 minutes later when you take them off ? :wonder:

[Anthony 1]

I do not see hat changing wheels for another OME wheel should be a problem. I think that if their was claim, that the insurance policy would not become null and void at all but they may refuse to pay out on the alternative wheels if the have not been declared and the loss adjuster gets to see them. Obviously their are loads of insurance companies and they might differ slightly overs some points I have head of someone having a payout deduction for wheel replacement because of the above. Some companies will charge an administration fee just for changing details.

Do not forget that when one rings an insurance company it may be just a girl or boy Friday that answers the questions and they might not have a clue and say anything. If their was a problem then nobody would be able to fit anything other than OME replacement parts which is not the case. You can change tyres, brake pads and practically anything and their is little need to notify them but change the performance or the risk in some way then obviously they will charge and that is fair enough

[cheezemonkhai]

I do not see hat changing wheels for another OME wheel should be a problem. I think that if their was claim, that the insurance policy would not become null and void at all but they may refuse to pay out on the alternative wheels if the have not been declared and the loss adjuster gets to see them. Obviously their are loads of insurance companies and they might differ slightly overs some points I have head of someone having a payout deduction for wheel replacement because of the above. Some companies will charge an administration fee just for changing details.

Do not forget that when one rings an insurance company it may be just a girl or boy Friday that answers the questions and they might not have a clue and say anything. If their was a problem then nobody would be able to fit anything other than OME replacement parts which is not the case. You can change tyres, brake pads and practically anything and their is little need to notify them but change the performance or the risk in some way then obviously they will charge and that is fair enough

I agree which is why i asked ti to go to the underwriter and at first got the sorry sir, it will cost answer.

It was only when i complained about this that I got the second referral and another answer.

[GriffoVRS]

What happens when I put my steel spare on my alloy shod car?

Perhaps I could have 4 spare steel wheels just in case

[gadgetman]

AA insurance are retarded, then!

You seem to think a lot of things/people are 'retarded'. You'll hopefully change your stand point as you get older

Easy get out, my dad fitted them. He's a mechanic

Is he? Can he prove it to the insurance co?

I am pretty sure this would not wash with the Insurance Ombudsman. If I had winter steels, I wouldn't notify my insurance company. What a load of tosh.

Each insurer has their own rules, underwriting conditions etc etc. By taking their insurance and paying up you are saying you agree to their terms.

The issue of fitting is a valid one. Didnt the RAC or the AA do a survey/checks on cars with spares on and found an astounding number (I recall 70% odd) werent tightened sufficiently. Without an airgun, or an extended torque bar, you simply wont doi the job properly using a spider or worse the std supplied bolt tool!!!

[cheezemonkhai]

Each ins co may have it's own conditions, but the ombudsman regulates them and unreasonable behaviour that made it to the Ombudsman is unlikely to go well for them. That plus it costs (£350 IIRC) to the insurance company just for the ombudsman to look at it win or lose.

[donmcknz]

Seems silly to increase the premium just because you made your car safer to drive in winter conditions but , from the insurance company's point of view, you now have a set of alloys + tyres sitting in your garage while you are away ( very tempting to the less scrupulous members of society!!)

[Lady Elanore]

Depending on what my next car is, I might struggle to get OE size winter tyres for it (poss run-flats :( ) so would need to drop a size in diameter, but even though it would make this car several times safer, the insures are not happy :( At least a cursory call insinuated as much.

[Babs]

You seem to think a lot of things/people are 'retarded'. You'll hopefully change your stand point as you get older

Is he? Can he prove it to the insurance co?

Each insurer has their own rules, underwriting conditions etc etc. By taking their insurance and paying up you are saying you agree to their terms.

The issue of fitting is a valid one. Didnt the RAC or the AA do a survey/checks on cars with spares on and found an astounding number (I recall 70% odd) werent tightened sufficiently. Without an airgun, or an extended torque bar, you simply wont doi the job properly using a spider or worse the std supplied bolt tool!!!

Lots of things are retarded. Are you retarded too?

He is, and he can.

And I always - as does he - fit wheels back on with standard cross wheel brace. Torques then checked afterwards. Always fine. Then again, I've got big arms. If the RAAAC are checking those of people with tiny weedy little arms then there's going to be some discrepancy.

Now, if you'll please stop trying to have a go at me, it'll be much appreciated.

[stringbean]

Seems silly to increase the premium just because you made your car safer to drive in winter conditions but , from the insurance company's point of view, you now have a set of alloys + tyres sitting in your garage while you are away ( very tempting to the less scrupulous members of society!!)

Except while your alloys are in the garage they are covered by your home insurance not your car insurance...

[Anthony 1]

The thing is insurance companies do often raise the premium when cars are made safer. thy do apply a logic to this though we may disagree with it. Some years ago a friend with a Landrover had a Full Built In Roll Cage put in because he was obsessed with safety issues. He always informed his insurers what he did to his vehicle, he was very good on this and usually the premium stayed the same. With the cage however the premium went up. He was licence and several correspondences exchanged between him and the insurers. The explanation that the insurers gave was the the Safety Cage creates a feeling of increased safety and that may encourage the driver to take additional risks due to their perceived feeling of reduced risk.

I understand the logic of the insurer, it is a bit like 4x4 drivers thinking that they can thrash around in the snow because they feel that they will not have problem. I do not necessarily agree with it without a proviso.

Insurance companies rate the premium against the risk to them, they use a logic to determine what we pay. It is a competitive industry but differences may exist between companies. Unfortunately we deal with the guy or gal at the end of the phone or e m. The answers that we receive may depend on exactly who we speak to on various occasions, in all likely hood they will not be an expert of insurances and these days call centre type mentality seem to prevail at many. I usually have my broker deal with things, their very good with that but it does not mean that their advice is infallible either though they are used to dealing with these matters.

The other thing is and I am not suggesting that the original poster is one of these, on the contrary and far from it but across many motoring web sites their is a panic environment and a heightened sense that this or that will invalidate ones insurance. Sometimes I feel that they are actually empowering the companies to take more draconian measures. In one way or another nearly every car in this country has been modified one way or another often just very minor things, the insurers still pay out. Of course they will seek to find ways not to do so, that is what loss adjusters are for. Normally they will only refuse to pay out if the modification can be unequivocally be proven to have influenced the claim. They may adjust the pay out or not pay out at all if they know that is the case. I feel that it is a matter of proportion. Still that is only what I think.

[KayakJim]

thanks Anthony, some helpful comments. Just want to afirm that it was not my intention to cause panic and infact it was initially another poster in the off topic thread which caused me to doubt my similer logical thinking. I hope that i was clear in my first post that it was the insurer that advised that non diclosure in my case would have invalidated my policy and that my careful use of the word 'may' was intended to make others aware that it could be a problem. Non disclosure is a difficult area and some may prefer to take the risk, its down to the individual.

[foo]

FWIW Bell want £25 notes from me for this.

[yegnold]

I would agree with the effect non-declaration has on a claim.

Imagine a car has aquaplaned on water and hit a tree, writing it off.

Situation 1: The owner of the car had fitted bigger diameter wheels with a wider contact area, without notifying the insurance company.

Situation 2: The owner of the car had fitted a full leather interior to the car without notifiying the insurance company.

My bet would be the insurance company would reject the claim in Situation 1 but not Situation 2.

Winter Wheels are a really difficult one though 'cos you never know if the change to winter wheels caused the accident or not, whereas my example above is fairly clear cut.

Edited 18 January, 2010 by yegnold

[Anthony 1]

It is without doubt an interesting discussion with no real one answer fits all. Different insurance companies may see it one way or another and react accordingly who knows. I am not trying to poor scorn on the origona post but merely offer an alternative view or different perspective. the thing is if one purchases additional rims of a different construction and size how then do people feel is the best way to proceed. Considering that one may inform the company do you tell the every time you change or just tell them that you have two set of rims/tyres and will be alternating as the weather turns or at a specific time of the year. It would be interesting to know whet the situation is in Germany where tough TUV standards and most likely insurance companies like every i doted and every t crossed.

If some one where to change the brake pads for none OME, would they inform the insurance company because some pads offer much different performances to others?

The other thing is even if the insurers cut off the insurance after an accident, they can be challenged, it is not so black and white.

Edited 18 January, 2010 by Anthony 1

[Babs]

Situation 1: The owner of the car had fitted bigger diameter wheels with a wider contact area, without notifying the insurance company.

Mk1 Octavia vRS - OEM spec included both 205 and 225 section tyres...

[Anthony 1]

I also agree if the car is listed with alternative OME sizes that their should be less of a problem within reason. Type approval in other words.

Edited 18 January, 2010 by Anthony 1

[Babs]

Also, bigger wheel != larger contact area.

My VR6's OEM size was 205/55/15, current wheels are 205/40/17.

[cheezemonkhai]

Also winter tyres isn't a problem, because you can fit any legal tyres to the car, not just what it came with.

The issue will be the wheels you put them on.

FWIW I now have confirmation there will be no charge, I just have to let them know that I'll be doing it.

[springlea]

Also winter tyres isn't a problem, because you can fit any legal tyres to the car, not just what it came with.

The issue will be the wheels you put them on.

FWIW I now have confirmation there will be no charge, I just have to let them know that I'll be doing it.