mileage you state should also be accurate, I know a guy who hit a deer, when the insurance inspected the car they asked for the mot certificates, they recorded the mileage between the most recent and as the stated mileage was 12,000 on the policy but the car had done nearly 13,000 in the year he was also refused his claim.

Some people get into trouble by trying to 'carry over' unused mileage. It's common for insurers to check what the mileage was at MOT time. The average over the last n years doesn't matter.

A fair point Brian,

Premiums for youngsters these days are rridiculous and massivly over egged compared to the risk - they are an easy target for the insurers and get stung.

No excuse at all for not declaring mods but some of the reasoning behind not declaring is bound to be associated with the costs incurred as a result of declaring...

If you can't afford to declare it, then don't do it?

If you can't afford to declare it, then don't do it?

well, quite.

This is exactly the reason i use Brentacre, I can mod the car and only get stung on BHP increase.

and YES they where the cheepest place for me to insure too.

Serves him right really, Sucks that he has lost his car but we all know and are told, if you mod then you declare.

Direct line no longer ask for estimated mileage, or where you park at your home (drive, communal parking, garaged). I checked when I renewed as they didn't mention it and that's what I was told. They're only interested in mileage if you have business use.

A few people have responded to my post but I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. There is no doubt he was wrong not to declare but the premium hikes for young drivers recently have been phenominal and, in my opinion are out of proportion to the risk.

I bought a car when I was 18 but the insurance then, even when taking into account inflation etc. was a fraction of what it would be now and I'm pretty sure I would have been as much of a risk then as a similarly young driver would be now. However back then my fathers insurance was not dissimilar to mine now and again he would have been a similar risk and we lived a mile or so up the road.

So what has changed - other than vastly increased premiums for youngsters and what has justified that if the risks are similar?

Don't get me wrong the lad in the original post should have declared mods in the same way that I do but, as I said the inconsistency in pricing changes makes me wonder and is more than likely a reason why he didn't.

As and aside it is also more than likely a reason why there are so many uninsured drivers on the road which has the potential to affect us all and in my book is bad news - would there be less of them if premiums were more realistic and reasonable?

So what has changed - other than vastly increased premiums for youngsters and what has justified that if the risks are similar?

My understanding is that, the computer risk models used by the insurance companies have vastly more data to feed on

The result is that they known a younger person is more likely to make a claim, for a variety of reasons.

Your location, where you state you park, type of car, whether and how its modded, etc all increase/decrease the likely hood of a claim being made

I'm guessing these models/formulas also incorporate a profit margin multiplier element too.

ps

Would be very interesting to see the actual profit margins from the different socio-demographic groups, preferably projected onto a map

A few people have responded to my post but I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. There is no doubt he was wrong not to declare but the premium hikes for young drivers recently have been phenominal and, in my opinion are out of proportion to the risk.

I bought a car when I was 18 but the insurance then, even when taking into account inflation etc. was a fraction of what it would be now and I'm pretty sure I would have been as much of a risk then as a similarly young driver would be now. However back then my fathers insurance was not dissimilar to mine now and again he would have been a similar risk and we lived a mile or so up the road.

So what has changed - other than vastly increased premiums for youngsters and what has justified that if the risks are similar?

Don't get me wrong the lad in the original post should have declared mods in the same way that I do but, as I said the inconsistency in pricing changes makes me wonder and is more than likely a reason why he didn't.

As and aside it is also more than likely a reason why there are so many uninsured drivers on the road which has the potential to affect us all and in my book is bad news - would there be less of them if premiums were more realistic and reasonable?

What has changed? - They have finally figured out that young drivers are a risk. If you want to get on the road now, they will have you by the balls.

You mention risk, please do remember companies pay millions of pounds for software that looks at data to spot/predict trends to base prices on. Start thinking about the information we share with an insurance company and what they gather in the event of an accident.

A friends 19 year old son has just written off his car. A clio he paid nearly £8K for ,a year ago.

He'd lowered the suspension and fitted a Coke can exhaust ,without telling them.

They have refused to pay up..........

and why should they if he has breached the terms of the policy

Premiums for youngsters these days are rridiculous and massivly over egged compared to the risk -

No, they accurately assess that you drivers are a very high risk. The risk of them writing off a car is only a small part of the equation - the cost of third party claims can be astronomical.

A few people have responded to my post but I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. There is no doubt he was wrong not to declare but the premium hikes for young drivers recently have been phenominal and, in my opinion are out of proportion to the risk.

I bought a car when I was 18 but the insurance then, even when taking into account inflation etc. was a fraction of what it would be now and I'm pretty sure I would have been as much of a risk then as a similarly young driver would be now. However back then my fathers insurance was not dissimilar to mine now and again he would have been a similar risk and we lived a mile or so up the road.

So what has changed - other than vastly increased premiums for youngsters and what has justified that if the risks are similar?

has it really changed so much 'thought!

Risks are certainly higher as the roads are now busier and young people have far better access to cash and hence cars than they did years ago.

As a 21 year old 33 years ago it cost me £60/ a year for third party insurance for the equivalent of today's hot hatch. Don't know what that equates to in todays money but it was certainly too much for me to keep the car for a second year.

Edited 9 March, 201313 yr by slider

If the 8k Clio cost 2k to insure and they couldn't afford the insurance for the mods, then they couldn't afford to buy and install them either.

The person had money for toys but not insurance... He made that choice.

Slightly OT but I married a risk analysis supercomputer.

And she took a chance on me

Continuing OT, are you sure that isn't a case of RIRO?

My understanding is that, the computer risk models used by the insurance companies have vastly more data to feed on

The result is that they known a younger person is more likely to make a claim, for a variety of reasons.

Your location, where you state you park, type of car, whether and how its modded, etc all increase/decrease the likely hood of a claim being made

I'm guessing these models/formulas also incorporate a profit margin multiplier element too.

ps

Would be very interesting to see the actual profit margins from the different socio-demographic groups, preferably projected onto a map

Yes, that's a big part of it - the insurance companies obviously have vast amounts of data on different drivers and claims that have been made which they can use to calculate risk. Although I doubt they would post profit margins, there are stats available to show the accident figures for young drivers and they are scary reading.

Another reason I'd say for the increased premiums is covering the cost of personal injury, previously if you hit another car the insurance company would pay out to repair the damage to the cars but now the payouts for whiplash claims or more can mean far higher payouts. Everyone has to cover that cost but the percent increase in premiums will be far worse for young drivers when they're paying hefty premiums already.

John

Would they also not pay out a penny if you got a brand new Octavia with the Sports Suspension option factory fitted but not declared?

I'm not sure on this but my understanding is factory fitted options are fine and do not need to be declared but anything fitted afterwards does have to be declared:

Modifications are non-standard changes made to the car after manufacture, such as new spoilers, alloy wheels, exhaust pipes, changes to the engine capacity etc.

What I do wonder though is if you buy a car that has a modification someone has made but you're not aware of, then the car gets written off is it your fault for not making sure the car had a modification? For example, if a car has been remapped if you've not driven another of the same models I wouldn't think it's obvious it's been remapped as it's not something visual either.

John

What I do wonder though is if you buy a car that has a modification someone has made but you're not aware of ...

The answer to that is 'tough luck'

The answer to that is 'tough luck'

No it isn't. If you are genuinely unaware of any modifications done by a previous owner then you have done nothing wrong.

Many years now that in the event of accidents and claims there are Loss Adjusters & Private Investigators online checking out Forums and Social Media, finding out your 'Car Mods' and posts on that vehicle and the persons posts on the Mods done.

Not far fetched, its how it is,

Coroners courts get information from 'Online Forums', like in the case of one Home Mechanic who killed his children in a crash his bitsa 110 Land Rover..Everything was laid out to see in his Blogs and posts of half arsed mods & bodges.

Some Investigators do not even need to look far.

Fabia 1 section must be a mine of information and 'commission' as Claims are rejected.

george

How are you going to prove to the insurance company it wasn't you who carried out the mod ?

You bet your bottom dollar, its the 1st thing folks try on with the insurance company after being refused claim on grounds of undeclared mods

Just think of those neighbours that have had enough of next doors son and mates d1cking it around, then hear that the car is written off.

Knock on the door or a phone call from someone asking a few questions about said 'young lad' next door,

there is that and the kind that pay their childrens insurance and get sick of the guy down the pub boasting about Fronting his young lad.

Or reading it Online these days.

All sorts out there happy to keep the roads safe or nutters away from their area.

That is how the world goes around. Well the UK world.

re Mods and saying done before you bought the car.

A Loss Adjuster asks for receipts, service records etc.

They check Gumtree or Ebay, Autotrader and see the advert, talk to the previous owner/seller.

You might say you have none. 'I know nothing'

They go and do a Credit Check.

Wheel/Tyres on 'Tick/HP', RE-map done on your Credit Card and a Balance still on the Card,

payment made to REVO say.

Check your MOT and there was a Pass in 2010 & an advisory in 2011 on Springs and exhaust.

They can go visit the MOT tester.

None of it is Rocket Science.

george

Even if they can't prove it was you that did the mod, I expect the line would be 'ignorance is no defence'

Like trying to tell a copper/magistrate you didn't see the speed limit sign

The answer to that is 'tough luck'

No it isn't. If you are genuinely unaware of any modifications done by a previous owner then you have done nothing wrong.

You could probably argue that you purchased the car second hand and didn't know the springs were different.

I would hope that an insurance company/ombudsman would take a different view to the one they would take for people who have changed the car and not declared.

Obviously people will try it, but if you were an old granny, who purchased a clio and didn't realise it had sport springs on it, then you might have somebody a bit more understanding.

Edited 11 March, 201313 yr by cheezemonkhai

Even if they can't prove it was you that did the mod, I expect the line would be 'ignorance is no defence'

Like trying to tell a copper/magistrate you didn't see the speed limit sign

No, it's absolutely nothing like that - to pass your theory and practical tests you have to demonstrate the ability to read speed limit signs and adjust your speed otherwise you won't pass. Therefore if you are driving on the road you are expected to be able to react to speed limit signs and it's not defence if you don't see one. A remap on a car is completely different as it's not something that's easily recognisable, reading through insurance ombudsman cases on modifications this morning I suspect they would not favour the insurer unless it could be demonstrated the policyholder was aware of the modification and hadn't disclosed it.

John

You can only read Insurance Ombudsman cases where a case went to them.

Where someone has undeclared mods and this has the effect so that,

only the Third Party is going to be paid out to,

there are cases where it is pointed out to the 'Policy Holder that did not declare truthfully',

&

in effect had no valid insurance other than 3rd party vehicle cover, 3rd party protected, not driver or Fully Comp payout.

& that might have been found out while the car was inspected or from other evidence,

'Proceed with your Insurance claim if you wish

, but we are prepared to pursue you for our losses.' See you in court.

Many accept that they were 'not declaring in a honest or truthful way', Grin and bare it.

nothing then goes to any Ombudsman.

george