Modification notification to the insurer

[spooks007]

Having just bought my T6.1 I will be looking to modify the vehicle appearance over the comming months with the addition of Alloys wheels side bars etc etc

With these additions at what point do you notify the insurance company of these add ons I.e after they have been fitted or on renewal.

Do alloy wheels etc class as a modification?

From previous experience modifications were classed as items that enhanced the performance of a vehicle os is this policy dependant?

Sorry for so many questions it a steep learning curve owning one of these vans !!

 

[Sasquatch]

Anything that deviates from the spec of the vehicle as delivered will be classed as a mod, although some firms accept factory options without the need to be notified.

Read the policy, and if in doubt ask your insurer - they're the only ones that can give a definitive answer.

 

[whodat]

I would think if your alloy wheels cost a fortune - that might be something that would add value to a potential thief or the amount to reimburse you in case of accident.

 

[roadtripper]

Generally anything that permanently changes the van from how it left the factory could count, as the factory condition is what the insurer is working out the risk and cost of repairs on.

You need to inform them from the point you do the work as that's when the insured risk changes.

 

[Rioja John]

I’m with Brentacre and they do not charge you for modifications to your van unless performance related and I’ve notified them on every modification I’ve had done with no problems at all.

John.

 

[archersam]

I am with CHUBB and they also don't care unless it is performance related. They don't even want to know. I did tell them about my chameleon as various people were suggested even if it was legal limits the insurers wouldn't insure it, they didn't care. I have a guaranteed fixed value on all my vehicles and they set the premium accordingly and will pay the full insured value with no quibbles (I already had a total loss 5.1 that was stolen before I got my 6.1).

 

[d8smt]

A mate of mine recently got a very expensive claim turned down by Hastings because he had non-OEM rear suspension (it was replaced professionally for like-for-like, no performance enhancement or lowering, but non-OEM (after an MoT failure), non-standard alloys (same spec as originally with same tyres, just different pattern), swiveling passenger seat and an orange decal. It was a T4 so he wasn't aware of any of the mods apart from the seat and orange decal. None of the changes would have had any change to his risk profile regarding his claim (hit when parked).
I've let my insurers (A-plan Thatcham) know of all the mods on mine plus they have a list of additional mods that I haven't done yet but plan to do. Didn't increase my premium at all. I've listed pretty much every non-standard item in the conversion as a result of my mate's experience above!

 

[Sasquatch]

I'm with Ailing Fux and have to list any mod that wasn't either a) standard showroom spec for the base van, or b) part of the camper conversion (and they wanted to know the make and model name of the conversion as well.)

 

[JumpShip]

Ask your insurer.
Some policies dont cover modified vehicles at all so ask what the score is first.

 

[archersam]

A mate of mine recently got a very expensive claim turned down by Hastings because he had non-OEM rear suspension (it was replaced professionally for like-for-like, no performance enhancement or lowering, but non-OEM (after an MoT failure), non-standard alloys (same spec as originally with same tyres, just different pattern), swiveling passenger seat and an orange decal. It was a T4 so he wasn't aware of any of the mods apart from the seat and orange decal. None of the changes would have had any change to his risk profile regarding his claim (hit when parked).
I've let my insurers (A-plan Thatcham) know of all the mods on mine plus they have a list of additional mods that I haven't done yet but plan to do. Didn't increase my premium at all. I've listed pretty much every non-standard item in the conversion as a result of my mate's experience above!

that should have been an easy appeal and eventual win at the Ombudsman really and Hastings are well renowned for squirming out of claims too.

 

[d8smt]

that should have been an easy appeal and eventual win at the Ombudsman really and Hastings are well renowned for squirming out of claims too.

yeah, I've drafted him a very legal letter that should hopefully do the trick.

 

[Bav]

that should have been an easy appeal and eventual win at the Ombudsman really and Hastings are well renowned for squirming out of claims too.

All depends on the policy Ts&Cs. If the insurer is acting in accordance with those Ts&Cs, then the courts (and therefore the Ombudsman) are unlikely to intervene.

 

[archersam]

All depends on the policy Ts&Cs. If the insurer is acting in accordance with those Ts&Cs, then the courts (and therefore the Ombudsman) are unlikely to intervene.

Well it starts before the T&C's it starts with the Key facts document and the facts that are in possession of the policyholder as well he cannot disclose facts he does not know about. Other than a swivel seat and a sticker the OP could easily have argued that the vehicle is as he believed it came from the manufacturer if for example the wheels are also OEM and available on that model for example.

I have beaten many an insurer over the years as a consumer for myself and others (and also lost as a professional claims person) on badly worded/ambiguous key facts documents and poorly presented presales documentation.

The ombudsman will in most circumstances err more favourably on a consumer than a court in these matters.

 

[B.different]

They shouldn't throw out a claim for non oem parts as that's double standards on there part. As most of the cars that are repaired, insurance companies insist on non genuine parts to be used unless it's in manufacturer's warranty. So effectively they are sending out vehicles that are non compliance with there insurance policy.

A mate of mine recently got a very expensive claim turned down by Hastings because he had non-OEM rear suspension (it was replaced professionally for like-for-like, no performance enhancement or lowering, but non-OEM (after an MoT failure), non-standard alloys (same spec as originally with same tyres, just different pattern), swiveling passenger seat and an orange decal. It was a T4 so he wasn't aware of any of the mods apart from the seat and orange decal. None of the changes would have had any change to his risk profile regarding his claim (hit when parked).
I've let my insurers (A-plan Thatcham) know of all the mods on mine plus they have a list of additional mods that I haven't done yet but plan to do. Didn't increase my premium at all. I've listed pretty much every non-standard item in the conversion as a result of my mate's experience above!

 

[Bav]

Well it starts before the T&C's it starts with the Key facts document and the facts that are in possession of the policyholder as well he cannot disclose facts he does not know about. Other than a swivel seat and a sticker the OP could easily have argued that the vehicle is as he believed it came from the manufacturer if for example the wheels are also OEM and available on that model for example.

I have beaten many an insurer over the years as a consumer for myself and others (and also lost as a professional claims person) on badly worded/ambiguous key facts documents and poorly presented presales documentation.

The ombudsman will in most circumstances err more favourably on a consumer than a court in these matters.

The OP was talking about potential future mods, not mods already applied by a previous owner.

Obviously, you can't inform an insurer about mods you couldn't reasonably be expected to know about and it is that term "reasonablness" that gives the Ombudsman license to rule in favour the consumer. The Ombudsman is, however, still constrained by the law and won't intervene if there's no ambiguity or equivocation about the insurer's actions and that was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Hilly64]

Well it starts before the T&C's it starts with the Key facts document and the facts that are in possession of the policyholder as well he cannot disclose facts he does not know about. Other than a swivel seat and a sticker the OP could easily have argued that the vehicle is as he believed it came from the manufacturer if for example the wheels are also OEM and available on that model for example.

I have beaten many an insurer over the years as a consumer for myself and others (and also lost as a professional claims person) on badly worded/ambiguous key facts documents and poorly presented presales documentation.

The ombudsman will in most circumstances err more favourably on a consumer than a court in these matters.

not van related but I have a claim with the ombudsman at present over a contents policy. I declined "accidental damage" , I break it I buy or mend it, I accept that risk. It also describes Personal Possessions as laptops, phones etc so again declined. Jewellery never gets mentioned

Wife lost a diamond earing and the insurers AXA say Loss is Accidental Damage .... last time I look at a dictionary the definitions were completely different!

True in the small print after you take out the policy it lumps Accidental Damage with Loss so arguing I was miss-sold at the time of sale. Investigation just started after 8 months

 

[archersam]

not van related but I have a claim with the ombudsman at present over a contents policy. I declined "accidental damage" , I break it I buy or mend it, I accept that risk. It also describes Personal Possessions as laptops, phones etc so again declined. Jewellery never gets mentioned

Wife lost a diamond earing and the insurers AXA say Loss is Accidental Damage .... last time I look at a dictionary the definitions were completely different!

True in the small print after you take out the policy it lumps Accidental Damage with Loss so arguing I was miss-sold at the time of sale. Investigation just started after 8 months

yeh to a lay person on the street loss is not an accident I would say. Cant believe Axa complaints department upheld the decision, nice Ombudsman fee for them probably would have paid a chunk if not the value of the loss.

 

[Hilly64]

yeh to a lay person on the street loss is not an accident I would say. Cant believe Axa complaints department upheld the decision, nice Ombudsman fee for them probably would have paid a chunk if not the value of the loss.

yep Axa dismissed very quickly. I assume they think most people roll over and your right they now pick up a fee from the ombudsman