Aaah... but if the insurance company completely failed to ask for any other information other than the standard questions, no request to disclose 'any other information', 'material facts', or any other 'tick the box' generic disclaimer that your car is completely standard, then surely you could pull them up on this?

A loophole, surely?

The Ombudsman has made it clear to insurers that they must ask very clear questions relating to things they consider important to evaluating the risk. Hiding stuff in small print won't work with the Ombudsman even if at the end of the day it might be 'legally' binding. In cases of material non-disclosure the insurance company will have to show that it asked very specific questions relating to things like convictions, accidents, modifications etc - it is one of the main reasons why insurers record telephone conversations when selling policies.

Very unlikely to find a policy that had that. The documents are read carefully by lawyers. Insurance companies are bigger than you and I and their first action would be to refuse your claim, pay the third party and sue you for the settlement. You could involve the Ombudsman, CAB etc but meantime you have no car cover (can't go elswhere without declaring to the new company the problems with the previous one. Having your policy cancelled for any reason is a MAJOR material fact) so you are stuffed...better to be honest.

BTW there is also a little known part of civil law refering to actions in deceit where the court views the conduct and actions of the defendant (you) and would be entitled to take the view that it would have been reasonable of you to declare the mods instead of trying to be smart...

End of law lecture.

But there always is a specific question relating to vehicle modifications - motor insurers aren't that stupid!

Don't think you're following me - say if you got a quote from the internet, and there was no facility to declare your mods, then how can they say that you were being misleading or deceitful?

Every internet site i have used has asked is the car standard.

More info from the Financial Ombudsman's website ....

"The insurer must first provide evidence that it asked the customer a clear question when the customer asked to take out or renew a policy. The insurer may ask questions via a traditional proposal form, which records the answers.

In many cases the transaction will have taken place over the telephone. If there is no evidence, such as a call recording and/or a copy of the statement of facts that the insurer has sent the customer, then we will have to decide what is likely to have happened. If the customer gives a credible account of events, we may find it more likely than the insurer’s version.

A similar statement of fact would be required for internet sales; as would some evidence of the questions asked during the website process, as it existed at the time of the application.

In order for non-disclosure to occur, the insurer must show that it asked clear questions."

Look, if you guys are really hung up on this then go and spend ££ with an insurance lawyer. Also the Ombudsman is not superman. If the matter goes to Court its the Court who decide as in your examples the case would rest on contract law..

This is becoming a Moon is Green Cheese exercise. The insurance companies do ask questions, do record the answers and if you try and pull a fast one (excuse the pun) then you have a very good chance of ending up with no cover or in the worst case a starring role as an uninsured driver in a fraud case...

A mate of mine wrote off his modified sapphire cossie and when the assessor came round he measured the lift on the cams.

if you did have mods and needed to claim for an accident, and had basic mods induction kit zorst etc. what would stop you putting standard parts back on, if accident damage was not too bad it would be a half hour job and no one would know! my dad had an accident and an accesor came to inspect the car he gave a date and time, which gave plenty of time to put everything back to normal.

Depends if there was a third party involved. I suspect the boys in blue would become involved if you were found out..tampering/destroying evidence, that sort of thing. Serious stuff if somebody was hurt and would automatically make the accident your fault even if it wasn't. Even if it was you v a tree I'd still think it would be devious, dishonest and fradulent.

Wouldn't go there myself.

I guess the other problem is that you might not be in a position to reverse your mods if you're badly injured!

On another note, my current insurers have never asked me about mods ... it's not on their form! Pity I don't have any ... although hold on ... Forge DV006, Mintex fast road pads, New CD Head Unit, Goodyears not Pirellis!

at the risk of sounding legalese , contracts of insurance
have from time immemorial , been deemed contracts
uberimae fides.

ie , contract of utmost good faith.

the reason being that the insurer's quote hinges upon you
declaring everything upon good faith. Not , for eg , upon
them asking you the correct questions.

cheers.
.

If you answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and belief you will be fine.

If you genuinely didn't realise the car had a mod and they call you up on it then you'll be justified in disputing any decision to decline cover. If you are prepared to press it they will probably back down. Obviously, if you didn't realise the car was modded when it has aftermarket alloys, exhaust, FMIC etc etc then it may be hard to persuade people you didn't realise.

If you tell a porky then you may be able to get away with it by pleading ignorance but is it really worth it??? You'll be suprised how they find out things. For example, by looking at the posts people make on the forum... If they can really be bothered they may be able to find out people's real identity by obtaining an order for 3rd party disclosure from the club or whoever hosts the forum.....

You also risk them recording insurance fraud against your name - there is good reason why they ask if you've ever had cover cancelled, declined or special restrictions attached to you.

I think this all depends upon the company that you are insured with. It seems that the smaller companies are much more fastidious in their inspections (I think that measuring the lift on the cams is the most extreme example I have come across) as they have the most to lose by paying out for larger claims.

The larger companies (take for example a certain eastern county city based provider), are far less stringent in their assessing of the vehicle, in favour of maintaining their reputation of having a 'niggle-free' claims process. The outsourcing of the claims dept has meant that the claims process however has become 'nigglesome' in other ways, which also lends to the company wanting a quick resolution of the claim.

Don't misinterpret this as my endorsement of going with the larger companies because, in my opinion they are more likely to be ignorant of undeclared modifications. This is not the case. I am sure that were someone to launch themselves from a speed bump and plough through the lunchtime queue in McDonalds (no great loss, I hear you cry) there would no doubt be a lengthy investigation which would involve a thorough dissection of the ill-fated car, with checks for after-market chips and measurement of cam-lift de rigeur. (Apologies for the w@nky turn of phrase)

The whole thread came from my experience when shopping around for my motor renewal. I was quoted via MoneySuperMarket, and then completed further questions for Bedford via Highway Insurance. Having written policy booklets myself, I was surprised when at no point during the quote process was I asked whether I had any modifications fitted to the vehicle, or asked to tick a box or agree to a disclaimer stating that my car was standard and unmodified in any way.

It was only when I received my policy documentation through the post that I read in the wording that it was agreed that my car was unmodified. I was wondering where this left me from an insurance point of view, and if I then had the right when calling to declare my modifications to state that I hadn't initially been asked, nor had the facility to disclose such information whether the vehicle was modified, and therefore should not be subject to a loading because of this.

However, following a revisit to the quote process from MoneySuperMarket, it appears that in pressing the 'proceed' button to accept the quote, I was also agreeing to their Terms and Conditions. A little root through these, and there it was.

I shall draw my breathy post and my at times controversial thread to a close then. A textbook exercise in futility, I'm sure you will agree.

I was just kidding Andrew, I have appreciated your thoughts!

Post deleted by Skodaman

My experiences......

I crashed a lightly modified Coupe in May 2002 and wrote it off. It had plus wheels, Zender bodykit, SuperSprint exhaust, K&N panel, strut brace, replacement turbo. All had been declared, and I was paying about £150 extra for the mods.

When the insurance company inspector came to view the car, he didn't look at the mods - he went straight to the tyres and brakes to see if I'd been driving a defective car. Clearly, he was looking for a way to refuse the claim. their first offer was £3250. They ended up paying me £6000

My current experience of mods is far better. I called Liverpool Victoria after they mailshotted me at renewal time. I told them I was heaviliy modded, and they asked me for an exhaustive list.

GT28R turbo
Chip
intercooler
chargecooler
air filter
boost controller
Exhaust
dump valve
strut brace
17" wheels
lowered springs
uprated shocks
uprated brakes

and a few more things I can't remember off the top of my head

Total extra charge?

Zero

Nothing

Nada

Zip

Apparently, drivers of "more mature years" who tend to modify their cars will do so properly and not cut any corners. Their claims experience suggests that true car enthusiasts have a far better claims record than "ordinary" drivers, so they don't load at all.

what a result!

Post deleted by Skodaman

that definately seems a lot more sensible , modifications are not covered after an accident so only a theft risk and an accident risk should be taken into account . obviously insurance companies are trying to make profit and most usually do but its high time they looked upon modifications sensibly .