How car modification affects your insurance
 

This a quote from the BBC Money Box Programme.

Matt Rawson bought a second-hand VW Golf in the autumn of last year. He thought it would be reliable for work. And he was very happy with it, but three months later he had an accident. He was fine, but the car was damaged and went to a garage for repair. When the mechanic looked at it, Matt got a shock.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03jfy59

13 February 2016
Duration:
8 minutes

One insurance company I used to deal with even classed MUDFLAPS as a modification, but not car mats as they were removable ..... :duh:

Good link Rod

Whilst the Insurance Company - Ageas - was clearly wrong in this instance, and not only that they broke the FCA's cardinal rule of not "Treating Customers Fairly" such that the policyholder would easily have won a complaint via the FOS - it does show clearly that some insurance companies have teeth and want to bite people who modify cars and do not tell them.

Thankfully all seems quiet now on here as those who kept saying "Who is ever going to find out" seem to have seen sense.

But if anyone needed reminding - this link is a truly excellent reminder!!

my mate had a golf r32 a few years ago and he got hit from behind by a taxi,clearly not his fault as he was stationary at lights at the time,the car was 2 years old at the time and when it was new,came with dunlop sp sport tyres,now 2 weeks before the accident the replaced the worn out dunlops with michelin pilot sport as they had better reviews on performance cars etc.....anyway the insurance company wouldn't pay out as the tyre brand was not the same as it left volkswagen :shrug: :eek: as that's what volkswagen 'specified' the car should run on........

I would hazard a guess that he was fleeced then. Though l sincerely hope he fought the decision & won.

I don't doubt what you say - and i am sure the "Lowest Price" - "Cheap Cheap Cheapest" - "bottom of the barrel" insurance companies will find any excuse not to pay out - and your post sounds like a classic example.

A tyre change for equivalent spec tyres is not a reason to decline a claim. The FOS is quite clear on this. In fact even fitting diabolical Chinese Death Rings to your car does not invalidate your insurance as long as the audit trail states that they are the correct tyre type for your vehicle.

I know for a fact that there are some insurance companies out there who are financially weak with a correspondingly poor "Claim Paying History" who work on the principle that they simply provide a piece of paper that makes you legal to drive.

Do not for one moment think that in the event of a claim they will be of any use or support whatsoever.

I am sure the FOS would have found in his favour - but this story and the Money Box article do tell the story very well that some Insurance Companies constantly try to re write the rules.

It would be a good exercise for us all as club members, to write to Ageas quoting this report, stating that you will no longer consider them as a viable option when reviewing any future car insurance options.

I will see if I can get an email contact for them.

What do others think?

So if I fit an inline stat would I have to declare an engine modification?

And what if you use non-Rover approved polish :duh: