General Prospective new owner.. few questions!

[RobinPJ]

.... to conclude my point, if the alloys either increase the risk or the amount of any future claim then it probably ought to be declared. Because then it might affect the premium.

 

[chicaneuk]

Humm... interesting.

See in the case of my current car I've declared all modifications (engine, brakes, suspension, etc) but not mentioned alloys as, whilst they're not the alloys the car originally came with, they were standard / optional alloys on the model at the time. I've never even thought any further than that.

Food for thought though - thanks!

I was getting quoted £280 for a Pop and something like £310 to insurance a Sport so can't imagine the difference for a set of Original Equipment alloys will be too horrendous

 

[loveshandbags]

Actually I believe you would - or at least should. Of course it largely depends what the insurer asks you, although (and here's the legal bit) an insurance contract is one of the exceptions to the general rule of "caveat emptor" - which normally means that you only have to not lie, you don't have to volunteer any information. An insurance contract is a contract "uberrimae fidei" (of the utmost good faith) which means you have to tell the insurer everything that they would want to know even if they forget to ask.

That does still beg the question whether they would want to know if you have put lush expensive alloys on a Pop. I suspect most people do not tell their insurer but one day an insurer will refuse to pay and will say it was because of this non-disclosure. (If it has not already happened.)

Option 1. Have the Dealer supply the car with the steelies changed to alloys and have the receipt specifying the alloys - ticks the 'Dealer supplied' box - stretching the 'truth' a bit since it wasn't originally supplied like that.
Option 2. Pay cash for the Fiat alloys and put them on the car and play stupid.

A lot of things in life on the 'Right & wrong' thing can get skewed from a 'Correctness' point of view. I wouldn't highlight any words for PJ's very informative post but if I put alloys on a Pop I would specify it on the insurance to 'be sure be sure'.
My understanding is that Adrian Flux does not charge any extra for modifications to a car if they do not give any performance benefit.

 

[chicaneuk]

Just one thing I do wish to be clear about here.. I'm not enquiring about whether to declare the alloys or not because I wish to fiddle the insurance.. it's a question as to whether I actually need to for compliance with terms of the policy!

I'm an honest person and wouldn't want to jeopardise my 10 years NCB!

 

[loveshandbags]

Just one thing I do wish to be clear about here.. I'm not enquiring about whether to declare the alloys or not because I wish to fiddle the insurance.. it's a question as to whether I actually need to for compliance with terms of the policy!

I'm an honest person and wouldn't want to jeopardise my 10 years NCB!

I have a very good mate that works in a leading insurance company in Dublin (head assessor) and he keeps me on the 'straight and narrow'. If the car is anyway different to the 'dealer supply' spec then it needs to be declared. If you supply your reg no. to Fiat it comes up with exactly how the car is supplied. So if the car is not an import it can be checked.

 

[mjsmke]

I have a very good mate that works in a leading insurance company in Dublin (head assessor) and he keeps me on the 'straight and narrow'. If the car is anyway different to the 'dealer supply' spec then it needs to be declared. If you supply your reg no. to Fiat it comes up with exactly how the car is supplied. So if the car is not an import it can be checked.

They must draw the line somewhere though. Parts like tyres, brake pads, stereos, stickers make the car different to when it was supplied.

I thought insurance companies only needed to be inform of changes that increase performance? like induction kits ect...

 

[loveshandbags]

They must draw the line somewhere though. Parts like tyres, brake pads, stereos, stickers make the car different to when it was supplied.

I thought insurance companies only needed to be inform of changes that increase performance? like induction kits ect...

An Assessor's job is to find out ways of 'not paying out'. Given the competitive nature of insurance that keen price you get has a 'down side'.

It is also the reason why a lot of guys have gone for the 'standard' A500SS model in preference to the A500 with a TMC because there's a significant difference in Insurance quotes with the SS much cheaper.

Any changes 'go faster stripes', pads different to OEMs, winter tyres, etc. all have to be declared.

 

[306maxi]

Any changes 'go faster stripes', pads different to OEMs, winter tyres, etc. all have to be declared.

This IS NOT correct!

Winter tyres are part of the specification of the car.
If the pads are e-marked then they're legal.

Sure a company can try to say no to a claim, in fact they can say no, but when you take them to court and butt**** them they will pay out.

They can tell you that if you put new tyres on you have to call them whilst wearing a pink tutu whilst holding the phone in your left hand and a footlong meatball marinara sub from Subway in your right hand to declare the change. They can even refuse to pay out because you did not comply with their terms but when you take them to court they will have NO leg to stand on and they will be forced to pay out.

Let me clarify this again. Winter tyres are 110% legal if you are using the ones specified in the handbook.
Pads are 100% legal as long as they're E marked.

 

[loveshandbags]

This IS NOT correct!

Winter tyres are part of the specification of the car.
If the pads are e-marked then they're legal.

Sure a company can try to say no to a claim, in fact they can say no, but when you take them to court and butt**** them they will pay out.

They can tell you that if you put new tyres on you have to call them whilst wearing a pink tutu whilst holding the phone in your left hand and a footlong meatball marinara sub from Subway in your right hand to declare the change. They can even refuse to pay out because you did not comply with their terms but when you take them to court they will have NO leg to stand on and they will be forced to pay out.

Let me clarify this again. Winter tyres are 110% legal if you are using the ones specified in the handbook.
Pads are 100% legal as long as they're E marked.

Have you had any personal experience of going to court with legal representation (this will cost you a lot of money particularily when you have to engage senior counsel) or challenging an assessor's decision ?

Looking at p155-156 on Tyres it refers to Standard & Snow type - no mention of winter tyres - but you will need them if it is ice & slushy. In some countries it is offence not to fit winter tyres at a particular time of the year but that is not the case in Ireland and I think in the UK. I could find a thread where the recommendation is that you inform you insurance company when the standard fit tyres are changed to winter tyres . If you look back at the brake thread I demonstrated that 'All season' tyres fitted increases your braking distance - that would be grounds for a insurance company to apply a degree of negligance on your part. These are a standard fit in the US but not Ireland/UK.
In relation to an E rating some of the higher performance pads are not legal for road use since they have too much friction - again I posted a copy of an email highlighting this.

 

[306maxi]

Have you had any personal experience of going to court with legal representation (this will cost you a lot of money particularily when you have to engage senior counsel) or challenging an assessor's decision ?

Looking at p155-156 on Tyres it refers to Standard & Snow type - no mention of winter tyres - but you will need them if it is ice & slushy. In some countries it is offence not to fit winter tyres at a particular time of the year but that is not the case in Ireland and I think in the UK. I could find a thread where the recommendation is that you inform you insurance company when the standard fit tyres are changed to winter tyres . If you look back at the brake thread I demonstrated that 'All season' tyres fitted increases your braking distance - that would be grounds for a insurance company to apply a degree of negligance on your part. These are a standard fit in the US but not Ireland/UK.
In relation to an E rating some of the higher performance pads are not legal for road use since they have too much friction - again I posted a copy of an email highlighting this.

Winter tyres ARE snow tyres.

Michael, what you seem to ignore is that the only legal requirement that an insurance company has is that the tyres are that they're the correct size, speed rating and load rating, that the tread is legal and that they're E-marked. This is literally all that an insurance company can look at, otherwise they can eff off and mind their own business as the law dictates.

The E mark itself is what makes a tyre legal for use on the road.

 

[loveshandbags]

Winter tyres ARE snow tyres.

Michael, what you seem to ignore is that the only legal requirement that an insurance company has is that the tyres are that they're the correct size, speed rating and load rating, that the tread is legal and that they're E-marked. This is literally all that an insurance company can look at, otherwise they can eff off and mind their own business as the law dictates.

The E mark itself is what makes a tyre legal for use on the road.

I don't pretend to know anything about winter tyres since you are the resident expert but there is a distinction between Winter and Snow tyres and they are different. The classfication of SNOW tyres in the handbook - common sense would prevail here - it's probably an Italian - English translation 'thing'.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101208044745AATwpoC

 

[RobinPJ]

OK calm down everyone.

Two simple points.

First, I am only telling you about English law, and Michael's experience in dublin may well be different.

Second, I would repeat that an insurance company will be interested in anything which affects their decision whether or not to take on the risk. This obviously includes performance enhancements, but is certainly NOT limited to them.

Just by way of an example, if you put very expensive alloys onto a Pop and it was stolen (and you had not declared it) then the insurer may say (rightly in my view) that the alloys made the car more attractive to thieves, and therefore increased the risk. They may thereby avoid the policy.

Contrast that with a non-standard brake pad. Assuming it is not made of chocolate then I suspect that the insurer would not really care as it would not make the car a bigger risk in any sense, so it would be irrelevant.

 

[bgunn]

You could say a 'performance' brake pad was fitted to make the car cope with braking from higher speeds more effectively, and thus could constitute a higher risk as the car may well be driven at those higher speeds more often. If in doubt, I'd declare, but I agree about winter tyres - as long as they're E marked/road legal tyres and suitable for the conditions they're being employed in, I can't see there being a problem.

 

[RobinPJ]

You could say a 'performance' brake pad was fitted to make the car cope with braking from higher speeds more effectively, and thus could constitute a higher risk as the car may well be driven at those higher speeds more often. If in doubt, I'd declare, but I agree about winter tyres - as long as they're E marked/road legal tyres and suitable for the conditions they're being employed in, I can't see there being a problem.

I am quite sure that such an argument, if run by an insurer, would be laughed out of court.

 

[306maxi]

OK calm down everyone.

Two simple points.

First, I am only telling you about English law, and Michael's experience in dublin may well be different.

Second, I would repeat that an insurance company will be interested in anything which affects their decision whether or not to take on the risk. This obviously includes performance enhancements, but is certainly NOT limited to them.

Just by way of an example, if you put very expensive alloys onto a Pop and it was stolen (and you had not declared it) then the insurer may say (rightly in my view) that the alloys made the car more attractive to thieves, and therefore increased the risk. They may thereby avoid the policy.

Contrast that with a non-standard brake pad. Assuming it is not made of chocolate then I suspect that the insurer would not really care as it would not make the car a bigger risk in any sense, so it would be irrelevant.

By fitting something which is e-marked you are fulfilling your obligation, regardless of whether the product is made from chocolate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_mark#The_e_mark

By affixing the CE marking on a product, a manufacturer is declaring, on ones sole responsibility, conformity with all of the legal requirements to achieve CE marking and therefore ensuring validity for that product to be sold throughout the European Economic Area. This also applies to products made in third countries which are sold in the EEA.

And basically the E mark is the automotive equivalent.

IF the pad or tyre or whatever is found to be of a poor quality then the insurance company can take it up with the manufacturer. All season, winter and summer designations are not officially given out by anyone so there is no legal basis for an insurance company to make any sort of decision based on a designation. If they could, do you you not think they would deny winter crash claims when people are on summer tyres

Agree regarding fitting alloys to a pop, it's a visual modification and as such they can get you for it.

 

[loveshandbags]

OK calm down everyone.

Two simple points.

First, I am only telling you about English law, and Michael's experience in dublin may well be different.

Second, I would repeat that an insurance company will be interested in anything which affects their decision whether or not to take on the risk. This obviously includes performance enhancements, but is certainly NOT limited to them.

Just by way of an example, if you put very expensive alloys onto a Pop and it was stolen (and you had not declared it) then the insurer may say (rightly in my view) that the alloys made the car more attractive to thieves, and therefore increased the risk. They may thereby avoid the policy.

Contrast that with a non-standard brake pad. Assuming it is not made of chocolate then I suspect that the insurer would not really care as it would not make the car a bigger risk in any sense, so it would be irrelevant.

With the brade pad 'improvement' - Performance pads don't work well on the 1st or 2nd stop - they need to be warmed up and then they perform. The graph I posted from Car & Driver demonstrates this. An insurance company would take note of that. I've heard of assessors checking tyre pressures to see if they can 'show somebody up'. So nothing surprises me.

Anyway on the 'calm' advice - I'm very calm but it makes for an interesting discussion.

 

[306maxi]

You could say a 'performance' brake pad was fitted to make the car cope with braking from higher speeds more effectively, and thus could constitute a higher risk as the car may well be driven at those higher speeds more often. If in doubt, I'd declare, but I agree about winter tyres - as long as they're E marked/road legal tyres and suitable for the conditions they're being employed in, I can't see there being a problem.

Basically it works like this. Your car is insured based on it using E marked parts where applicable such as lights. An E Mark is the manufacturer taking responsibility for their product's use on the road and deeming it suitable for use on the road.

The E mark is there to protect the motorist and ensure and it basically removes the liability from being with the customer to being with the manufacturer which is how it should be.

 

[jrkitching]

...makes for an interesting discussion...

Let's keep it interesting and consider the position if you go the other way and fit steel wheels to a model which would normally be fitted with alloys...

 

[306maxi]

With the brade pad 'improvement' - Performance pads don't work well on the 1st or 2nd stop - they need to be warmed up and then they perform. The graph I posted from Car & Driver demonstrates this. An insurance company would take note of that. I've heard of assessors checking tyre pressures to see if they can 'show somebody up'. So nothing surprises me.

Anyway on the 'calm' advice - I'm very calm but it makes for an interesting discussion.

Yes, BUT if the product is E marked then it matters not for you. IF the product is not suitable for road use then it's the manufacturer who is in the hot seat.

By affixing the CE marking on a product, a manufacturer is declaring, on ones sole responsibility, conformity with all of the legal requirements to achieve CE marking and therefore ensuring validity for that product to be sold throughout the European Economic Area. This also applies to products made in third countries which are sold in the EEA.

It's really all rather simple.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/busi...egulations/product-regulation/ce-marking-faqs

If brembo sell you some pads which are e marked but only work at a billion degrees and you crash then Brembo dun wrong innit? [sic]

 

[bgunn]

I'm not disputing that fact, but an E marked 'performance' brake pad, from a known 'performance' brake parts manufacturer (whether they're actually effective is a completely moot point) fitted to a car could constitute an extra risk and thus be deemed as a cause for an accident. Insurance companies WILL try and get out of paying a claim if at all possible, so I would definitely declare a set of brake pads that weren't strictly OEM spec (i.e. uprated in some way, E marked or not).

Technically, it's illegal to fit parts that aren't and use the car on the road, so the insurance would be void anyway.