# A Report On Modified Vehicles



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

BIBA and Ageas have teamed up to produce a report on modified vehicles.

Worth a read for anyone unsure of what is classed as a modification. The message is it's better to be safe than sorry, if you are unsure, disclose everything and let your Insurers decide.

http://elink.ageasbroker.co.uk/c/4/...xMS0wMDBkM2E4NmQ4MDE&K=BaDHkF1PTdrxLgUG-GDUdg

Its a bit "meh" to me and the Ombudsman case with the Bluetooth kit puts Insurers in a very bad light (not all are like that) but i guess it gets the message across.

Anyway, it's free to read and, if helps someone, then it has its use!


----------



## blademansw (May 23, 2011)

Interesting read, especially to someone like me who has a 20 year old sportsbike. Many OEM parts are no longer available now, so when bits wear out, they have to be replaced with aftermarket non OEM (uprated) components which would then class as modified.

On a side note though, as I am also in Swindon, I'm going to nip down and see what kind of deal you can do me when my car insurance is due for renewal.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Uprated parts would definately need to be modified. I've declared everything on my Accord from coilovers, exhaust, fllywheel etc to stereo, Jazz washer jets and painted plastic bits in the engine bay. Always best to declare everything and let the Insurers decide what they class as a mod.

Welcome to pop in and see us for a quote. We aren't private car specialists, but are happy to see if we can compete. We tend to concentrate more on home insurance, property owners, business insurance etc.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Many thanks Lloyd,
Just got off the phone with the insurer to declare loads of stuff that I hadn't considered mods including mud flaps ceramic coating and subsequent window sticker, immobiliser, roof wrap and fourdot plates. They couldn't find them listed as mods so I asked them to file note them and send it to me which they already have.


----------



## kingswood (Jun 23, 2016)

had a read through myself. the first case studies do seem like insurance companies using any excuse to avoid paying. 

its bad enough they just pay 'markey value', theres being plenty examples of where the 'market value' is below the like for like value. my R32 - dont laugh - would be £7k plus to replace. think it books at about £2.50. think it was Kerr's mini coppervan he lost alot of moeny on getting like for like.

not all insures are this tight tho. remember about 12 years ago writing off a pug 206 GTi, front end at a roundabout when the person infront changed their mind about pulling out. car went to repairers and was over 50% so paid out. i asked if i could remove the clear lights i'd put on and they said yes but we could void your policy for that so let us know next time. 2 lessons learnt!


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

There's tons of people driving about with cars that aren't insured properly.

There is tons of remapped/tuning boxes that owners are desperate to hide to keep their warranty/insurance down and comply with their finance agreement.

Loads of people have wheel spacers on the BMW forums. Apparently insurance companies really hate wheel spacers and such a cheap modification adds a huge amount to their premium.

I would say most people are playing dumb as they know they've changed their car and know they should say.

Read this ombudsman case for an example of how much people are willing to risk and play dumb. The fact that he was caught out so badly was one thing, but he still raised a complaint to the ombudsman. Who on earth would even begin to consider this case?

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/229495/DRN9804307.pdf


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

kingswood said:


> had a read through myself. the first case studies do seem like insurance companies using any excuse to avoid paying.


I agree, the cases are a bit harsh and don't shed a good light, but they do make a point. Both complaints upheld by the Ombudsman though. Also, the complaint examples are over 10 years old, things have changed a fair bit in more recent years in the industry with CIDRA and other FCA regulations.

Kerr makes a good point that there are loads of people that think they know better and hide certain mods from their insurers etc. I used to deal with a garage that had a forensic clean room for the police to investigate accidents and they worked hand in hand with loss adjusters. Some of the investigations were nut and bolt jobs, far from some peope's belief that the Insurers "will never know".


----------



## HEADPHONES (Jan 1, 2008)

I've contacted my insurance company about all 3 of our cars and was pleasantly surprised at zero loading on all 3.
2006 Mini Cooper exhaust rusted through about 5 years ago.
Had a custom made Longlife stainless one fitted.
Adrian flux said if that was the only mod, zero loading.

On our Kia the diamond cut rims are corroding again.
Asked Esure what excess for getting new 18 inch rims with standard silver paint. They said nothing as long as they are still 18s.

On the 350z I declared the factory fit body kit and optional 19 inch Nismo rims. No excess as they were factory options but would only be replaced with standard parts in the event of an accident .

But after this heads up I'll be ringing the insurance company about my head unit.
I was using a cassette adapter to play tunes from my phone.
The cassette deck broke back in 2010 and I put a headunit with a 3.5mm input in.
Never thought to tell insurance.

And before anyone comments, I know.
CASSETTE PLAYER in a 350z :lol:


----------



## RandomlySet (Jul 10, 2007)

Shiny said:


> Uprated parts would definately need to be modified. I've declared everything on my Accord from coilovers, exhaust, fllywheel etc to stereo, Jazz washer jets and painted plastic bits in the engine bay. Always best to declare everything and let the Insurers decide what they class as a mod.


Sounds like me with the Cupra I had back in the day. I used to send my "Spec List" over that we'd stick in the windows on club stand. It had everything from exhausts and coilovers to brand of discs & pads and even tyres, painted bits, smoothed bits etc. They also had copies of Rolling Road graphs to prove power output and I think on one occassion even a Santa Pod slip as it just got bundled in with all the other attachments. :lol:

All paid off when the car was rear ended. Dispite not being my fault, the assessor came to inspect the car, and he was looking at anything and everything to void my insurance. Anything he looked at or pointed at I'd just say "yes, it's declared".... He got the idea eventually :lol:


----------



## wayne451 (Aug 15, 2016)

Kerr said:


> There's tons of people driving about with cars that aren't insured properly.
> 
> There is tons of remapped/tuning boxes that owners are desperate to hide to keep their warranty/insurance down and comply with their finance agreement.
> 
> ...


I've got my leather trim declared. It's from another model of the same car. If you wanted to be a finicky beggar, I've not declared my OEM rear mudflaps.

If your car is faster (higher risk) or more desirable (higher risk) it doesn't take a genius to work out you're a higher risk to an insurer does it?

It was a bug bear of mine back in the day when I used to be in to highly modified/engine transplanted cars. I was paying through the backside whilst people were throwing 2.0T's in 1.0 Corsas and declaring them as standard.

I'll get panned for this but I'll wager that the person in your link, who is utterly taking the proverbial, is of ethnic minority. The job I do means I deal with people who push things too far (debt collection), the minority of the population is the majority of my job. In their mind it's a form of 'bartering'.

We rumble them for stealing electricity and gas. Even in cases that are clean cut, tampered seals (independently verified), never paid anything, tenancy pre-dates fitment of a new (now tampered meter), they'll still plead ignorance. They will still go to the Ombudsman and claim they're being victimised. They play the race card.

It's very cultural. It's seen as 'getting a deal' whilst the rest of us would view it as deception/fraud/theft etc.


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

Kerr said:


> Read this ombudsman case for an example of how much people are willing to risk and play dumb. The fact that he was caught out so badly was one thing, but he still raised a complaint to the ombudsman. Who on earth would even begin to consider this case?
> 
> https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/229495/DRN9804307.pdf


Bit late to this thread but good god, how did he think that would play out?! "I didn't know those expensive racing slicks that I've probably had to replace twice a week weren't standard"

He can't be stupid, or he wouldn't be able to afford that car in the first place. Curious to know exactly what it was.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

MagpieRH said:


> Bit late to this thread but good god, how did he think that would play out?! "I didn't know those expensive racing slicks that I've probably had to replace twice a week weren't standard"
> 
> He can't be stupid, or he wouldn't be able to afford that car in the first place. Curious to know exactly what it was.


A rare imported car with 350bhp standard and worth £75k. I'm not sure what it'll be. There used to be people claim the Subaru 22B was around 350bhp and not 276bhp.

The fact the guy bought such a rare car he knows what he bought. There's not a hope in hell he didn't know the car wasn't much more than 350bhp and just about every last part of the car had been changed.


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

Kerr said:


> A rare imported car with 350bhp standard and worth £75k. I'm not sure what it'll be. There used to be people claim the Subaru 22B was around 350bhp and not 276bhp.
> 
> The fact the guy bought such a rare car he knows what he bought. There's not a hope in hell he didn't know the car wasn't much more than 350bhp and just about every last part of the car had been changed.


Essentially what the ombudsman has said - you don't pay £75k for a car without a bit of research. I think you'd notice the difference between 350 and 600+ horses as well. The slicks though :wall:

Clearly a very distinctive motor, and he tried to claim it was standard as far as he knew?! No doubt he told his next insurer a very similar story (if indeed, he insured the replacement)


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

MagpieRH said:


> Essentially what the ombudsman has said - you don't pay £75k for a car without a bit of research. I think you'd notice the difference between 350 and 600+ horses as well. The slicks though :wall:
> 
> Clearly a very distinctive motor, and he tried to claim it was standard as far as he knew?! No doubt he told his next insurer a very similar story (if indeed, he insured the replacement)


I'm sure after a £75k mistake he'd have learned a very expensive lesson.

He'll also have the issue of telling future insurers that he has had a policy cancelled.


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

Kerr said:


> I'm sure after a £75k mistake he'd have learned a very expensive lesson.
> 
> He'll also have the issue of telling future insurers that he has had a policy cancelled.


I suspect, as Wayne suggested, he may think the rules are different for him. I was once told by someone he had a mate who could alter the insurance record and give someone however many years NCB they liked. I'm sure someone with that sort of access could also quietly remove something like the above from visibility on a basic search. Possibly even from the record altogether.

No responsible person would do such a thing, but we're talking about someone who took an ins co to the ombudsman over an open-and-shut case.

Boggles the mind.


----------



## cole_scirocco (Mar 5, 2012)

I hate insurance for this reason.

Back when I was 18, I fitted aftermarket wheels which were an inch bigger than standard and an induction kit (thought I was top dog and treated it from Halfords) and when I crashed I had to pay £1,800 for the additional parts and then premium in full. Lesson learnt.

Now, aged 28 and driving a 3 Series E90, I have so much as declared the gloss black grilles and headlight bulb changes, luckily for me they have not altered the premium as they don't (in their eyes) add to the cars appeal. If I do performance mods then they may not like it, but they did say based on my age (thanks) then it wouldn't be too excessive.

Always best to declare. I learnt my lesson when I was 18 to add anything... within reason I guess.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Mark R5 (May 21, 2013)

Cole_E91 said:


> I hate insurance for this reason.
> 
> Back when I was 18, I fitted aftermarket wheels which were an inch bigger than standard and an induction kit (thought I was top dog and treated it from Halfords) and when I crashed I had to pay £1,800 for the additional parts and then premium in full. Lesson learnt.
> 
> ...


Absolutely! Ridiculously, I've even declared that I have owners club stickers on the rear windows. Should anything ever happen, they're not using anything to get out of paying out.

Sad state of affairs but needs must in todays world.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

MagpieRH said:


> I suspect, as Wayne suggested, he may think the rules are different for him. I was once told by someone he had a mate who could alter the insurance record and give someone however many years NCB they liked. I'm sure someone with that sort of access could also quietly remove something like the above from visibility on a basic search. Possibly even from the record altogether.
> 
> No responsible person would do such a thing, but we're talking about someone who took an ins co to the ombudsman over an open-and-shut case.
> 
> Boggles the mind.


Fudging NCB is not difficult to do, but no professional in their right mind would do it. In fact there was recent industry press about a broker caught fudging NCB and they received a custodial sentence.

As for some of the comments, insurance is a contract that relies on the consumer being truthful and providing the correct information for an insurer to assess a risk and apply a rate based on the presented risk. If the risk is carelessly or deliberately misrepresented, then they have the right refuse a claim. This isn't looking for ways of not paying a claim, this is contract law.


----------

