Back on topic, if you had an accident, a removal of dpf, even if notified to the insurer, would not leave you liable. I would struggle to see the ombudsman seeing that a removed dpf would allow an insurer to absolve themselves of liability as it wouldn't be a contributing factor to an accident.

Off scope... if the dpf if gutted but externally shows no sign of deletion, as I understand current mot regs, the inspector is unlikely to fail in a missing dpf as he cannot fully inspect, which includes removing any under car shields, covers or protecting parts.

How the car would then fare on an emissions test is more than my knowledge extends to, if a car is Euro6/7 compliant, it will probably have specific targets?

Back on topic, if you had an accident, a removal of dpf, even if notified to the insurer, would not leave you liable. I would struggle to see the ombudsman seeing that a removed dpf would allow an insurer to absolve themselves of liability as it wouldn't be a contributing factor to an accident.

 

On most cars DPF removal also involves a remap to prevent warning lights etc. This remap is detectable even if identifying if it's a stage 0 or 1+ isn't.

 

Most if not all insurance companies will have a paragraph similar to this:

You must take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer. This means that all the answers you give and statements you make as part of your insurance application, including at renewal and when an amendment to your policy is required, should be honest and accurate. If you deliberately or carelessly misinform the insurers, this could mean that part of or all of a claim may not be paid.

 

By not declaring a modification you are misinforming the insurers and as I mentioned previously, in the event of a claim, it could be used against you if noticed when the vehicle is inspected. Whether it will or not, is completely down to the insurance company given the circumstances of that individual claim.

 

I wouldn't want to risk it and if the OP does decide to remove the DPF then they can make their own decision regarding the risks/benefits of failing to disclose modifications to their insurer.

Absolutely. If you don't want to be in a position where you have to fight over liability, full disclosure is the way forward.

Point to note, failing to inform and misinforming are different things. If you misinform (at renewal) is a pretty stupid thing to do. Failing to inform (inbetween renewals) can be an oversight. Neither of which do you want to be in a position if but the former would be a very very bad position to be in.

Edited 24 October, 20169 yr by Mallettsmallett

Has the car had an oil change and the wrong oil been used?

The DPF is viewed as a life of car item and needs inspection at 90,000 miles.

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/technology/glossary/diesel-particulate-filter

Their lifespan is dependent on factors such as fuel quality, driving style, use and oil consumption.

The way Skoda and some other manufacturers dismiss some items as wear and tear items is immoral. Wiper blades are wear and tear items, but what if they are worn out after 3 days of use. Are they fit for purpose under consumer legislation? almost certainly not. Clutch assemblies ( the one issue  that may stop me buying another skoda) are warranted for 6 months. Should a clutch plate wear out after 6 months and if so is it fit for purpose? I would say not. I have had around 70 cars, many of which were cheap and cheerful, before I could afford something better. Many had fairly high mileage and as far as I recall.  I have replaced one clutch, on a mark 3 Cortina, and it was just the friction plate and bearing. 

Skoda rely on people not taking them to court in a civil action to recover the costs of a clutch that may have gone after 7 months. It should be straightforward and an easy win. However, Skoda might claim that the car had been driven hard, the clutch ridden etc. and it would be difficult to disprove. It could involve additional costs including independent engineers reports . Skoda's  approach to this is immoral. Ford's warranty mentions clutches, but they are covered for threes years unless the cause is found to be wear and tear

Skoda used to rely on a certain type of customer who would accept their words as Gospel and without question. This still does occur frequently from my own experience and by the posts on here.

Unfortunately for skoda the customer base is changing. Now a wider more diverse cross section of the public purchase/lease these vehicles. With this comes more questions, a reluctance to be 'fobbed off'. At least this keeps skoda on their toes and maybe a little less blasé when dealing with us paying public.

The reason why these items are wear and tear is the amount of ignorant and dishonest people who would claim. In the respect of some one using the wrong oil and it damaging the dpf. And skoda having to pay out, imagine this for clutchs? And brakes. These item's have the highest scope to be abused. There are plenty of honest people who have these problems, the answer is vote with your feet, dont buy another. A car manufactrer dosent have the resource or the money to scrutinise every part.