Informing the insurance company or not an article in the Gardian Newspaper

[Kind of Blue]

The article is interesting. The feller suggests he'd merely thrown some camping gear in the back, yet the reply from the Guardian states it was a partial camper conversion with solar, heater and kitchen.

If he can't even be open and honest in a letter to a newspaper then lord only knows what he told his insurers. I hate to say it but it seems he did it to himself with his one.

I am always suspicious with the on line version of anything. I am a regular Guardian reader I used to buy and read the Broadsheet versions. Living here makes that all but imposable I would need to drive some distance to find a news agent that may or may not hold that sort of paper and post, well that would be a joke. We are supposed to get daily post but I think it is not even every other day and in any case it would be wet though. We have lived here quite a while and have seen so many changes like lack of proper line clearances for electricity and telephone very fortunate to have either electricity some time 1960's and phone some time later. Was told 20 or 30 years ago electricity would be not done for less that the house was worth a colossal figure . The phone line for many years just draped along the ground close to a hedge always going down. any way hat is digressing. Again. The printed guardian appears somewhat different to the on line versions. Of course it can be updated as events happen. Usually faster then the BBC but its the smaller articles, often poorly written out, spelling mistakes one might have thought I wrote them. Many smaller pieces are not properly referenced and seem very un-Guardian like as if written by a junior or lay reporter. In fact over recent years I wondered if some other agency had free space or had a way of dropping things in. (read government) The insurance article is not comprehensive, obviously their is a lot missing and it allows the reader to speculate and fill in the missing bits, could even be a commercially led piece written by someone other than a Guardian writer. The Independent also went down hill on line comparatively before dropping right down sice going on line only it is no where near what it was. When online papers where free and easy to read Ii would read most of the broad sheet but near impossible now but one thing I notice was the standards between the paper one once held up high to read is very different to the on line version.

I posted the link because it is topical and relevant to many on here and might bring up interesting debate and information that some including me, may not have even considered or even thought about. On my part I live in a remote place and rarely see anyone other than my own wife and so tend not to be very up to date with every day things so, have a tendency to hold on to more old fashioned ways and thought. The things that once where, suddenly appear changed and any without process.

 

[Bav]

...one might have thought I wrote them.

 

[DaveD]

Retro fit digital dashboards?
Would you be expected to update your insurance company?

 

[EAN]

Retro fit digital dashboards?
Would you be expected to update your insurance company?

I personally would say yes; it’s a material change. I declare everything on all my vehicles that wasn’t standard from new.
LED headlamps, leisure lithium and electric upgrade, wheels (premium increase), reversing camera (insurance discount).
Ultimately it is a modification and the insurance policy always states that modifications have to be declared.
In the event of a claim you may get away with it or you may not; not worth the risk in my opinion.
It does get more difficult after the 1st owner, as the 2nd or 3rd owner wouldn’t even necessarily know, but is ignorance a defence?

 

[whodat]

It is quite simple.
If you have an accident and it comes to light you had a digital dashboard, 20" tyres, roof rack, camping bed - or whatever, would the insurers try and wheedle out of a claim?
Most likely. If in doubt, let them know and that gives them less wiggle room - and if they decide not to insure you, and in fact, if all insurers decide not to insure you for that chinese wiring loom that converts light to heat or whatever, then you know it was a bad idea to install that item.
Best contact them before making any adjustments, then you know where you stand.
And in answer to EAN, ignorance is not a defence in the UK.
In fact, if it is a company vehicle, then you'll also get lumped with negligence.

 

[Kind of Blue]

Retro fit digital dashboards?
Would you be expected to update your insurance company?

Well I have also read around a little and many insurance sites are saying anything that changes the vehicle. One site site claimed even painting a go faster stripe. It was all news to me the level of what they consider of interest. The world particularly the UK is in an absolute mess. Pubic and private services are constantly finding ways, new ways to bring in ££££ and deliver a worse service. Even toilet paper manufacturers are cheating us, most bog role is unfit for purpose now it falls apart, it disintegrates it makes your arse sore. Even the most expensive brands have become thinner and thinner poorer quality. Wipes are the same. That is just the arse end, it is every thing . Newer trends in speed limits have little to do with safety its all to do with revenue its a big earner. If authorities where so interested in safety there are heaps of things that could be done. The state of road surfaces appalling, hedge trimming, roads in the country side are no longer swept resulting in years and years of rotting leaf mush turning to mud and slush narrowing even already narrow roads. Basically we are being short changed on every thing paying far more fore less poorly made products or services. Ordinary people are being squeezed from every direction and then being blamed for the problems and now it is going to get even worse because not only are we in a slump, partly of our own national making, we will be paying even more for things that we do not directly benefit from.

 

[DaveD]

I personally would say yes; it’s a material change. I declare everything on all my vehicles that wasn’t standard from new.
LED headlamps, leisure lithium and electric upgrade, wheels (premium increase), reversing camera (insurance discount).
Ultimately it is a modification and the insurance policy always states that modifications have to be declared.
In the event of a claim you may get away with it or you may not; not worth the risk in my opinion.
It does get more difficult after the 1st owner, as the 2nd or 3rd owner wouldn’t even necessarily know, but is ignorance a defence?

I agree, I haven't got one and don't want one, I was just speculating.

 

[Bav]

It does get more difficult after the 1st owner, as the 2nd or 3rd owner wouldn’t even necessarily know, but is ignorance a defence?

This is a good question.

Claiming ignorance certainly won't give you a free pass, but where there's a dispute, I suspect the ombudsman would apply a test of reasonableness - i.e. is it reasonable to expect that the policyholder would/should have known about the modification?

Obvious mods (aftermarket wheels, custom reupholstery, etc.) are likely to pass the reasonableness test, whereas more subtle mods (e.g. a small suspension drop) are less likely pass. Do bear in mind, though, if it came to light that you bought the vehicle through an enthusiasts' club or a specialist forum, then the bar for reasonableness would likely be set be a lot lower.

 

[Ricardo T]

What about re-maps @Bav? Somone may get a remap and keep quiet about it, and not tell a purchaser when the van is sold on. So someone might be driving around in a more powerful van than stated, I guess there is no obvious way of knowing when a van has had a map other than physically plugging it in? I dont have a mapped van btw.

 

[Hilly64]

The article is interesting. The feller suggests he'd merely thrown some camping gear in the back, yet the reply from the Guardian states it was a partial camper conversion with solar, heater and kitchen.

If he can't even be open and honest in a letter to a newspaper then lord only knows what he told his insurers. I hate to say it but it seems he did it to himself with his one.

that was my takeaway

 

[Bav]

What about re-maps @Bav? Somone may get a remap and keep quiet about it, and not tell a purchaser when the van is sold on. So someone might be driving around in a more powerful van than stated, I guess there is no obvious way of knowing when a van has had a map other than physically plugging it in? I dont have a mapped van btw.

Again, I suspect it'd be down to reasonableness - anyone would at least suspect if their van had been re-mapped from 100 to 200 PS, whereas some may be completely oblivious of a 150 to 180 PS re-map.

 

[Kind of Blue]

This is a good question.

Claiming ignorance certainly won't give you a free pass, but where there's a dispute, I suspect the ombudsman would apply a test of reasonableness - i.e. is it reasonable to expect that the policyholder would/should have known about the modification?

Obvious mods (aftermarket wheels, custom reupholstery, etc.) are likely to pass the reasonableness test, whereas more subtle mods (e.g. a small suspension drop) are less likely pass. Do bear in mind, though, if it came to light that you bought the vehicle through an enthusiasts' club or a specialist forum, then the bar for reasonableness would likely be set be a lot lower.

That is OK for any reasonably educated and brought up person but how many people actually know what an ombudsman even might be or what the processes might be. Most ordinary people probably buy a car and do what they can to avoid buying a duck and may be just grateful that it does not blow up like the last one. They may be a struggling family just trying to get by. Insurance companies may have had the power in the past to scrutinise to the nth degree but rarely if ever did. Now, either because the employed insurance personnel persona has changed, or the economy has forced a change or a mixture of both Buying a used vehicles is in reality a nightmare for many. I have never felt an us or them situation with Insurance companies over my entire driving life but it does appear that things have changed. As you and other have suggested buying a used vehicle 3rd, 4th and so on it is the lap of the gods and ignorance is no defence in the UK needs looking at . Further I believe that selling Insurance should be far more clear from the onset of negotiation and that the small print should be spelled out and greater education and openness in these matters come to the fore and be made Law. There should be no guessing as to what constitutes a change and it should not be left entirely under the control of powerful insurers.

Many, especially on these specialist types forum make harmless changes to vehicles maybe in complete ignorance of invalidating insurance requirements. Equally and side by side and on many days we also see people claiming and encouraging others to make illegal changes to their vehicles. Changes such as those regulating pollution controls for instance. Openly boasting about it. What about the 2nd 3rd 4th used buyers, they could not only be driving, unwittingly, a vehicle that runs fowl to the law but may have there insurance invoked so technically are uninsured as well and it is through no fault of their own. They could be fined suffer licence penalty and be very much out of pocket. Why do any Forum tolerate this. I understand resentment and discussion concerning these things but I feel it is a very much different thing having detailed instruction on how to do it.

 

[Bav]

That is OK for any reasonably educated and brought up person but how many people actually know what an ombudsman even might be or what the processes might be. Most ordinary people probably buy a car and do what they can to avoid buying a duck and may be just grateful that it does not blow up like the last one. They may be a struggling family just trying to get by. Insurance companies may have had the power in the past to scrutinise to the nth degree but rarely if ever did. Now, either because the employed insurance personnel persona has changed, or the economy has forced a change or a mixture of both Buying a used vehicles is in reality a nightmare for many. I have never felt an us or them situation with Insurance companies over my entire driving life but it does appear that things have changed. As you and other have suggested buying a used vehicle 3rd, 4th and so on it is the lap of the gods and ignorance is no defence in the UK needs looking at . Further I believe that selling Insurance should be far more clear from the onset of negotiation and that the small print should be spelled out and greater education and openness in these matters come to the fore and be made Law. There should be no guessing as to what constitutes a change and it should not be left entirely under the control of powerful insurers.

Many, especially on these specialist types forum make harmless changes to vehicles maybe in complete ignorance of invalidating insurance requirements. Equally and side by side and on many days we also see people claiming and encouraging others to make illegal changes to their vehicles. Changes such as those regulating pollution controls for instance. Openly boasting about it. What about the 2nd 3rd 4th used buyers, they could not only be driving, unwittingly, a vehicle that runs fowl to the law but may have there insurance invoked so technically are uninsured as well and it is through no fault of their own. They could be fined suffer licence penalty and be very much out of pocket. Why do any Forum tolerate this. I understand resentment and discussion concerning these things but I feel it is a very much different thing having detailed instruction on how to do it.

Nothing to do with education or up-bringing - if an insurer refuses cover because of undeclared mods, then the merest of online searches by the policyholder will show the process for appealing that decision. Raising a case with the Financial Services Ombudsman is simply a step along that process.

Undoubtedly, insurers are hotter on these things than they were in the past - paying out on claims to policyholders who've broken (knowingly or otherwise) the terms of their contract causes premiums to rise unnecessarily and cost is the primary criterion the public use when deciding where to purchase their vehicle insurance.

Ignorance should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card - that's just an invitation to feign ignorance. Much better is a reasonableness test that allows an independent party to assess what the average Joe could have been reasonably expected to know (and, therefore, declare).