In which way did you think that explanation is at odds with my statements?

If it doesn't affect their risk or value of a claim, then it's none of their business.

In which way did you think that explanation is at odds with my statements?

If it doesn't affect their risk or value of a claim, then it's none of their business.

That may be the case in NZ, but it isn't in the UK. as has already been explained to you.

See post #72 et seq of this thread:

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/250031-winter-tyres/page__st__60#entry2947853

I think you need to read this post again by R999: http://www.briskoda....60#entry2947349

Particularly the third paragraph about risk and disclosure. If it doesn't increase the insurers risk, then it's not material that needs disclosed. This protection, being enshrined in statute, overrides anything that an insurer may write in their contract.

This has been my position forever. The insurance scaremongering on this forum has not changed that and indeed is misplaced.

What happens in NZ bears no relationship to what happens here.

I do not know why you keep comparing the two.

Good night!

Graham, the post you have just referred to, and indeed the same I have referred you to, is written about UK insurance law. It defines exactly what happens where you are and that is what we are discussing.

Yes, at the full service.

Worked out it was cheaper going for the full works from Brit Resc than taking out EU cover twice a year.

Are you a member too?

No, I work for LV= but am based at Britannia Rescue

Just get back on the subject here...

I went to Skyinsurance.co.uk, the guys who advertise here and took part in the discussion.

The quote was Fabia 1.4vRS, not yet delivered and expected in 4-5weeks. I live in good postcode (B or C area can't remeber now) and have over 9 years of NCB no claims no convictions, married, much older than average population of this forums - a perfect insurance customer in other words

Sky quoted £550 (they just called me and run through all the details again where Admiral was at £276 with all bells and whistles inc legal cover, personal injury cover etc. Strangely enough £276 was higher if done for mult car than for single car. One would expect to have a discount for insuring both cars from a household in the same company...

Anyhow,

I cannot understand how is that possible, I mean such a massive price difference ?!?

TESCO for exapmle wants circa £320 for Fabia vRS

Chap from Sky was not able to explain it to me over the phone. I went on their website as they were supposedly offering car club discount...

What I cannot understand is why there is such a massive difference?!?

Thanks for giving us a try.

We simply cannot be competitive on every case but are competitive for the majority. We prefer modified and performance, with standard UK car insurance, there is a lot of competition, we specialise in the type of insurance you'd struggle to get via a comparison site.

Sounds like the UK insurance industry needs regulated. Does the ombudsman have teeth?

"Declare everything and let the insurance co decide". Hell No. All information should be provided on a need-to-know basis. If it's factory option then it isn't a modification.

The advice I have offered is solid. Declare everything, let your insurer do the rest. Insurers need to know what they are covering, it is very unlikely factory options are going to raise the premium, it really is a non-issue. The advice I offer means there will be absolutely no claim issues, if you leave out details of modifications, it is likely there will be claim issues.

Why do you take issue with answering an insurer's questions fully and therefore ending up with the correct cover?

'Material fact' is wide open to misinterpretation, hence declare everything, you are safe and sound.

Sounds like the UK insurance industry needs regulated. Does the ombudsman have teeth?

"Declare everything and let the insurance co decide". Hell No. All information should be provided on a need-to-know basis. If it's factory option then it isn't a modification.

If it's not a part of the model spec, it's not a factory fit option, it's not an approved accessory, then for insurance purposes, it's a modification.

Some insurers make the distinction - some treat factory fit options like modifications for insurance purposes. Given that you can add on £10k of options to a £20k car, it is reasonable for the insurer to take them into account.

e.g. Hill hold control can be a factory fitted option. The underwriters are finding that the risk of rollback accidents increases with this option, so why shouldn't this risk be taken into account.

Are you serious? There is no way I even trust an insurance company to work out what is or isn't material. They will always err to the side that raises premiums and reduces cover. Asking for "factory installed options" to be declared as modifications cements this reputation.

Giving an insurance company such as yours everything results in everything being able to used to weasel out of a claim.

"Oh I see you declared your tyres were Bridgestone, yet on the day you were backed into your car had Pirellis fitted. Since you did not notify us that you changed tyres hence we will decline your claim".

Oh my days. Are YOU serious? Are you just trolling? I am honestly confused by your stance here.

Is anyone else here struggling with the concept of declaring everything?

It is quite the opposite, the advice I am offering will prevent an insurer being able to 'weasel out' of a claim.

Factory options and minor cosmetic changes are very unlikely to effect premium. Why the issue?

Got to agree...

You've got to remember that insurance companies are businesses... They are there to make money... If it was a case of just giving you a piece of paper to say you're covered then they would...

They have to charge enough in policy premiums to cover the potential cost of a claim, pay wages and other cost... You're £800 isn't £800 in their pocket, that is divided by 12 and used to provide a monthly "pot" that is used to pay claims. They also have to have enough premium income to cover any potential claims (injuries "could" be millions in the extreme).

If you declare everything the risk factor is as accurate as it can be for YOUR circumstances, with hold things I.e after market alloys and that could result in your insurance being revoked and a claim not being paid...

At the end of the day, it's YOUR choice.

I agree it's a bit OTT, but a policy that says tell us everything or we'll void your insurance is a get out of jail card and also leaves people with anything not on the insurance not only in trouble in the even of a claim, but also liable for being marked for driving without insurance and hit really hard.

When they void the policy, then the third-party claim from a person you may have hurt should be honoured, but would they do it without a fight?

Will they refund part of the premium? How will they notify you. How will they find out?

AHEM- couple or few years ago ,I phoned up my insurers to put furby onto policy .Q1 - "Has it got imobbiliser".Q2 - "HaS it got ANTI LOCK BRAKES".

Pardon me, but this is part of vehicle spec that should be available to Insurance companies. Next shock to insurers was that the immobiliser was to Thatham 2 standards .

But then , lots of years ago ,I had an old Vauxhall 2.0 L(and this is the nub). Previous owner had fitted the brake servo and master cylinder from the more powerful 3.3 L version. I asked for a reduction due to uprated brake performance . Did I get one - no ways. Mods apparently only work one way .

These days ,I'm classed as a very low risk driver. I do low mileages, drive a low powered car , have a lot of years behind the wheel .

My griff is that after 9 years I see no change in my NCB,although I've got twice that .I smell RIP off .

But I do love getting every last cent in premium reductions from my insurers . I see it as my anti RIP off campaign .

Edited 27 September, 201213 yr by VWD

Thanks for the warning. About to radically downsize my car, Superb 1704x4 to a 1.2 Fabia.

For the first time in 20 years I hope my insurance comes down, every year it's gone up, but then I've gone up in car value or down in post code.

Waiting to see how much a 12+yr ncb on a 38 yr old is for a 5k fabia... if it's more than 200quid I'm gonna choke. Superb is 1000+, too much now I'm self employed...

No, I work for LV= but am based at Britannia Rescue

Good to know.

I can honestly say that I am very happy with the service from both companies. :clap:

Thanks for the warning. About to radically downsize my car, Superb 1704x4 to a 1.2 Fabia.

For the first time in 20 years I hope my insurance comes down, every year it's gone up, but then I've gone up in car value or down in post code.

Waiting to see how much a 12+yr ncb on a 38 yr old is for a 5k fabia... if it's more than 200quid I'm gonna choke. Superb is 1000+, too much now I'm self employed...

Don't count on it mate!

My circumstances are almost identical as yours. I have 10 years old VW Lupo 1.4TDi Sport (lowered suspension springs) and insurance on it is higher (=£350) than on new Fabia vRS!!! Lupo and Beemer are with TESCO, no need to say I am shopping around now furiously!

My Beemer (sig) is £370 and FabiavRS is £315 (not taken yet, just a quote) despite Fabia being much highe insurance group (Beemwr 26 Fabia 27, Lupo 9)

How is that for a scam since lowered suspension makes that car handle million times better than stock hence making it waaaay more safer to drive ?!?

Declaring all the mods has nothing to do with insurance risk. Even if you specify £10k add-ons this is reflected in car's value you declare, isn't it?

This is just an excuse to justify massive premiums. How in anybody's sane mind factory/dealer fitted option can be treated as a mod and how does it influence risk evaluation beside value?!? If I re-map it, change everything in the engine for performance parts, drop it down 500mm so it scrapes the road then yes, this effects risk as you can go much quickier in that car than stock (obviously not if it is scraping the floor ). Butthis is also very academic since crashing at a speed of 100mph, which most cars can esily achieve and 140mph makes almost no difference to minced meat all occupants of the car are going to be turned into (waiting for a flame on that one and prrofs how much more energy car carries between the two speeds lol ).

the only reason to declare your cars full spec is to make sure you get exactly the same replacement when it burns down, gets stolen or flooded. Now, tell me a first hand example when somebody got insurance payout equall to the real value of their lost motor?

The reason why such practices are happening is firstly the industry is not regulated and scondly hyperinflated costs of claims, where repairs cost multiples of real costs for the same job in a regular garage without framework agreement coupled with massive payouts to "law people" which eat away most of the compensation money, they balloned to astronomical proportions to feed themselves ends up with us having to pay those exorbitant premiums. Insurance companies do not make money on premiums at all, in most cases the loose it. They make money from investing such premiums in finacial markets and we know the state of them currently.

Fighting with "law mafia" and hunting for realistic repairs prices is obviously waay to difficult/expensive (I have a report showing financial viability of fighting insurance claims in courts by insurance companies and numbers do not lie, cheaper to settle and pay out) so they go for the obvious target, customers, as they have no choice and have to cough up.

In summary, yes, declsre everything so you get it replaced in case something happens but incresing insurance because you put aftermarket alloys, which in some cases are cheaper than OEM, is simply criminal! Same goes for factory/dealer fitted options - it is beyond any decency, logic and common sense to have a cheek to demend higher premiums for having things like that fitted to your car on any other grounds than simple increase in your ride's replacement value. Resale value of modified cars is lowetr than equivalent standard examples.

Sorry for the rant but I just can't keep quiet.

P.S. I agree with the insurance pros expressing their opinions here that all should be declared as this leaves no space for the insurer to weasel its way out of a payout on some flimsy grounds but on other hand the practice is to use that as an excuse to increase premiums to their heart's contents.

Just get back on the subject here...

I went to Skyinsurance.co.uk, the guys who advertise here and took part in the discussion.

The quote was Fabia 1.4vRS, not yet delivered and expected in 4-5weeks. I live in good postcode (B or C area can't remeber now) and have over 9 years of NCB no claims no convictions, married, much older than average population of this forums - a perfect insurance customer in other words

Sky quoted £550 (they just called me and run through all the details again where Admiral was at £276 with all bells and whistles inc legal cover, personal injury cover etc. Strangely enough £276 was higher if done for mult car than for single car. One would expect to have a discount for insuring both cars from a household in the same company...

Anyhow,

I cannot understand how is that possible, I mean such a massive price difference ?!?

TESCO for exapmle wants circa £320 for Fabia vRS

Chap from Sky was not able to explain it to me over the phone. I went on their website as they were supposedly offering car club discount...

What I cannot understand is why there is such a massive difference?!?

Different companies have a different attitude to specific risks. i.e. some don't like young drivers., some don't like old drivers, some have a differer attitude to points, anything called sport/vRs/Gti etc etc.

You can build a kit car that cost you £20,000 and get an Agreed Value & insure it for only £177 Fully Comp.

Limited Mileage, Gain NCB & use NCB.

Proper Insurance cover from people that understand others building things they cherish.

No Commuting, Garaged, Trailered or Driven and all covered.

Risks are lots of things, not just driving, its where parked where stored & how many other vehicles etc.

You can Modify,Lower, bigger engines and all sorts,

Just maybe do not expect the 'Sell lots of standard insurance policy companies' to be interested.

If you think lowered is safer then get a Company that agrees & provide the Engineers report they may want.

Re

Payouts and Values.

You can get the true value of a Vehicle or replacement of.

'Agreed Value', Pictures Receipts etc , even a Valuation Inspection. Do not expect that maybe on cars that depriciate as quick as many bog standard cars with a few overpriced extras, but Classics and Show cars etc.

then

GAP Insurance that cover that Finance & a replacement. Needs looked at on a new buy on finance.

Not all GAP Policies are a con.

george

I spec'd curtain airbags. All the other factory mods didn't affect premium, xenons lowered it as safety, yet as curtain airbags can lead to a write off due to replacement costs (I'm lead to believe) cancelled out xenon discount! The alloy upgrade which came with lowered suspension from the factory didn't raise any issues with any insurer to date.

This was a previous insurer.

Rbaldwin, I would love you see your figures on the increased accident risk of hill hold control and while we're at it. Cruise control.

You've said a 20k car can be loaded with 10k of options. Well only if you include the whole range of drivetrain and trim options in that. The drivetrain options are already known to the insurance company as they have power and cc ratings for the engines (or at least they should). The trim options that push up the price are already covered in the insured value of the vehicle. At 30k you are paying a higher premium than 20k. For the insurance company to charge extra again for these "factory fitted modifications" is double dipping.

Sky Insurance. Yes there is one group here struggling with the notion of declaring everything. That's you and the insurance co's.

Evil Miyagi. Insurance companies (their re-insurers and underwriters) are also investment companies. Think about that in your business model.

Aftermarket alloys could only void your insurance if they caused an accident (i.e. broke while driving). If the car is jacked up and the wheels stolen for undeclared aftermarket wheels then obviously they wouldn't be covered. But "void" is not a word that could accurately describe that situation.

Jabozuma. I agree with the insurance companies that lowered suspension increases risk. It encourages the vehicle to be driven harder and makes it less able to deal with bumps mid-corner than most stock vehicles. I do make a distinction between factory sports suspension and aftermarket lowering.

Rbaldwin, I would love you see your figures on the increased accident risk of hill hold control and while we're at it. Cruise control...

As I understand it, the increased risk for HHC applies primarily to drivers other than the main driver. The additional drivers don't take the time to learn how it works. They think they have all the time in the world after releasing the brake and roll back.

The cruise control additional risk occurs, for example, when it is set at say 50MPH in a contraflow. Then at the end of the contraflow the driver speeds back up to 70 and then comes up against slow moving traffic and lifts off. The car slows as expected until it reaches the set point where it picks up again and the car rear ends the car in front. The same can occur after overtaking.

In both cases, insurance claims often blame the technology when it is driver error. Bad drivers and driver aids seems to be a bad combination. If i'm about to run into someone I use my brake.

A neighbour of mine is a senior actuary in the motor insurance industry.

Reading this thread with interest and appreciate some advice. Having just ordered a vrs blackline I'm wondering what I need to tell my insurance company. The leather interior, sat nav and parking sensors are all Factory fit and are not 'options' (I couldn't opt for them or not to have them) do these need declaring?

Evil Miyagi. Insurance companies (their re-insurers and underwriters) are also investment companies. Think about that in your business model.

Aftermarket alloys could only void your insurance if they caused an accident (i.e. broke while driving). If the car is jacked up and the wheels stolen for undeclared aftermarket wheels then obviously they wouldn't be covered. But "void" is not a word that could accurately describe that situation.

I was only giving the example relevant to a drivers premium, and was on my phone... Yes, Insurance companies are also investment companies.

re the alloy wheel example, then you are probably right. But to change the slant of that a bit...

I was involved in a serious injury RTC and failed to declare my aftermarket suspension which was found to have caused the accident, why should the insurer pay out to after failing to declare a modification that resulted in the accident? ***

*** I didn't really, its just an example.

RBaldwin, isn't it amazing the situations terrible drivers get themselves into. Like you I use the brakes to stop running into people, but I suspect unsafe following distances are the root cause in the cruise control incidents.

Evil Miyagi. Indeed you'd be screwed if the suspension modification caused the accident and it wasn't declared. For example if dodgy coil-overs were fitted and a spring collar let go, dropping that corner of the car and causing you to lose control.

But that would be an extreme and unlikely event. In the situation where you had replaced a blown standard strut with an aftermarket one (say Koni or Bilstein) and no change in ride height. I wouldn't consider that a modification and certainly not one to bother the insurance company with.

I've seen and heard of some really dumb modifications in my time. Hacksawed springs to lower the car, rocks in the boot to lower the car, removed springs to lower the car. But those guys don't normally have insurance or even registration.

Evil Miyagi. Indeed you'd be screwed if the suspension modification caused the accident and it wasn't declared. For example if dodgy coil-overs were fitted and a spring collar let go, dropping that corner of the car and causing you to lose control.

But that would be an extreme and unlikely event. In the situation where you had replaced a blown standard strut with an aftermarket one (say Koni or Bilstein) and no change in ride height. I wouldn't consider that a modification and certainly not one to bother the insurance company with.

I've seen and heard of some really dumb modifications in my time. Hacksawed springs to lower the car, rocks in the boot to lower the car, removed springs to lower the car. But those guys don't normally have insurance or even registration.

I agree with the Replacement None-OEM Parts, as long as there is no adaptation from the standard specification of the vehicle...

IMO, anything that is different to the standard specification i.e. option box alloys should be declared... You will often find that there is no cost increase to the policy but try having the conversation with your insurance company if the worst comes to the worst and you get a replacement vehicle that is different from what you ordered originally... I'd be a little ****ed if I'd spent a few thousand extra on options and then they vanished as the insurance company didn't know about them...

Its swings and roundabouts tbf, some things you as a customer will gain on and others the insurer will gain on...