Having worked for an insurance company, I have voided policies that have had modifications on cars.
Inevitably, these modifications only came to light during a claim, so had it just been the policy holders car then we wouldn't pay out and simply give back the policy payments they have made minus any admin fees.
If it involves a third party, we would deal with the TP as RTA insurers (basic legal requirement) then look to recover costs from the policy holder.
It does go on. Insurance companies will do anything not to pay out and non disclosed modifications are the easiest.

digger58 said:

So with that thinking you should examine a new to you car and compare the spec to original. That would be interesting with brake pads especially! So called performance pads can fit the standard caliper, performance clutch? What about a car passing your MoT test or our NCT, will they pass with non standard equipment? I have yet to see any Insurer fail to cover any vehicle once they issue a policy, even in cases where monthly installments have lapsed!

Click to expand...

You would not be expected do a detailed inspection. If the ommission to disclose the modification was innocent, i.e. it was not visually obvious or described in the advert for the vehicle, you should be OK e.g. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/79/79-motor-insurance.htm#cs10
I always say "not so far as I'm aware" if the car is unmodified when I bought it. It's totally different if you do (or pay for) the modification after you bought the car, you can't then claim you did not know about it.

Robert G8RPI.

digger58 said:

So with that thinking you should examine a new to you car and compare the spec to original. That would be interesting with brake pads especially! So called performance pads can fit the standard caliper, performance clutch? What about a car passing your MoT test or our NCT, will they pass with non standard equipment? I have yet to see any Insurer fail to cover any vehicle once they issue a policy, even in cases where monthly installments have lapsed!

Click to expand...

Replacement brake pads need to be type approved for the application. In other words, if you want to place a set of pads for a 1.2 Punto on the market, you will have to do the type approval braking test on a 1.2 Punto (or a simulated test on a brake dyno). You'l lbe allocated an "e" number. The pads and the box will be e-marked. Deviate from that, and it's a "modification". My piano tuner recently got busted because he had signwritten his car with his website and phone number on it. That was enough to get him pulled by the Plod and the first thing they asked him was whether he'd disclosed it to his insurers. Naturally, it hadn't even occurred to him (it's not liek it makes it go any faster, after all!) but apparently, even signwriting a car can count as a "modification". Ignore it at your peril!

So now most new cars have been "modified" by that thinking, stickers from Garages on back window! That is totally pedantic. Having been a Police officer for 30 years I would love to know where the power to ask that question comes from! What were the qualifications of that officer to start with that he/she could determine that it was a modification. I would challenge that all the time. Again in relation to brake pads and other parts fitted, by the above thinking every job done on a car should be signed off to show all the parts comply with abc etc, When Insurers take you on and you don't tell an untruth they are obliged to cover you, we have case law in relation to that here, I presume the same in UK. If that were not the case, every drunk driver involved in a 3rd party accident would not be covered, because the driver took a decision to drive after drinking, ie he/she was involved in an act of Commission rather than an act of Omission!

digger58 said:

So now most new cars have been "modified" by that thinking, stickers from Garages on back window! That is totally pedantic. Having been a Police officer for 30 years I would love to know where the power to ask that question comes from! What were the qualifications of that officer to start with that he/she could determine that it was a modification. I would challenge that all the time. Again in relation to brake pads and other parts fitted, by the above thinking every job done on a car should be signed off to show all the parts comply with abc etc, When Insurers take you on and you don't tell an untruth they are obliged to cover you, we have case law in relation to that here, I presume the same in UK. If that were not the case, every drunk driver involved in a 3rd party accident would not be covered, because the driver took a decision to drive after drinking, ie he/she was involved in an act of Commission rather than an act of Omission!

Click to expand...

Hi.
A police officer can ask any question he likes, as long as it's not racist etc, and can talk to your insurer about level of cover. I've had one try to tell me that I was not covered to drive a company van for personal use and wanted to see permission. I was a sole person ltd company at the time so held a board meeting (with myself) there and then to decide the matter. The vote was unanimous and the copper was not amused. Garage stickers are not an issue as they are unlikely to materially affect the risk, advertising like web addresses are as someone may think there is material from the company in the vehicle or take offence to the advert. You are correct, the insurer must pay out on other party claims even if they void your policy, but this does not mean that they cannot or will not come after you personally to recover the money and their costs.
In some countries you do have to get even small modifications inspected or approved (you do for major ones in UK) and if people keep flouting the existing rules it will be brought in here and we will all suffer.


Robert G8RPI.

"A police officer can ask any question he likes"...... Total rubbish, he/she may try this but there must be a power enshrined in law to do so! For example, here a usual question at a checkpoint may be along the lines of "where are you going/coming from" There is no power to look for this information unless you have been arrested and are then required to account for your movements, we have the same with asking for name and address, technically must ask for driving licence first etc etc, Just because all this is done does not give it legal status. Again it is like a police officer deciding that a vehice is unroadworthy, where are his/her credentials to back up their decision? What is the position if a car passes it's Mot test with a few non standard parts? Is fitting them a fail? We are having problems here in Ireland with Insurance companies refusing to insure older vehicles despite them passing our test. A vehicle is either roadworthy or not!

digger58 said:

"A police officer can ask any question he likes"...... Total rubbish, he/she may try this but there must be a power enshrined in law to do so! For example, here a usual question at a checkpoint may be along the lines of "where are you going/coming from" There is no power to look for this information unless you have been arrested and are then required to account for your movements, we have the same with asking for name and address, technically must ask for driving licence first etc etc, Just because all this is done does not give it legal status. Again it is like a police officer deciding that a vehice is unroadworthy, where are his/her credentials to back up their decision? What is the position if a car passes it's Mot test with a few non standard parts? Is fitting them a fail? We are having problems here in Ireland with Insurance companies refusing to insure older vehicles despite them passing our test. A vehicle is either roadworthy or not!

Click to expand...

Hi,
I didn't say you had to answer the police officers questions. Anyone can ask a question
Passing an MOT is not an indication that it is legal for use on the road, only that certain items have been checked, with restrictions on even those checks e.g. can't remove panels. Some police officers are specifically trained and qualified to make roadside determinations of roadworthiness. If it's an obvious issue then the training may not be required, determining bald tyres for instance is widely accepted. If you don't agree with an officers decision you can always have your day in court and pay for your own expert witness.


Robert G8RPI.

Smeduz said:

Would anyone know how easy it is to remove the exhaust from the turbo or cat back?

Click to expand...

Dead easy, if you have a big angle grinder / disc cutter

Robert it's very simple! A Police officer has to have power enshrined in statue law to operate and can only operate with the limit of that statute,QED. As regards determining the roadworthiness or otherwise he/she needs the proper qualification to be able to operate and then give evidence if needed. A police officer would be laughed out of the witness box giving evidence about the mechanical condition and roadworthiness of vehicle without having qualifications to back up his/her claims. Things like excessively worn tyres can be easily detected using a tread depth gauge, simple you think? NO this gauge has to be calibrated, the officer has to be trained and certified in it's use etc etc. Policing isn't guesing at who's right and who's wrong! Answering a question is not the point if the officer is not entitled to ask that in the first place, I speak from 30 yrs experience here, I know what I'm on about, if you like..... qualified to comment! So if a vehicle passes an MoT test it's not necessarily legal for the road?????? what's the point in the test then? If it fails the test is it then unroadworthy?

Hi,
Correct, a car with a valid MOT is not automatically road legal. There are many requirements that are not checked on the MOT. Also many issues cannot be detected by the MOT. For example if somone has "cored" the DPF on a Diesel engined car the visual check allowed by the MOT will not detect it.

I have no idea what the regulations might be in the Republic of Ireland, but over here, anything being driven on a public road is subject to the Construction and use regs and the Road Vehicle Lighting Regs. Having an MOT means that (on the day the MOT test was carried out) the vehicle met the requirements of the MOT test. IT DOES NOT MEAN that the vehicle complies in all respects with C&U or RVLR and nor does it mean that at any point between the issue of that MOT and the date of the next one, it will continue to do so. (Frankly, a copper with 30 years experience really ought to know that)!

The MOT test CANNOT check a vehicle for compliance with all the legal requirements because there simply isn't the time or the necessary equipment available for it to do so. For example, the car is legally obliged to meet certain emissions requirements (based on its age) but the MOT test equipment is too basic to be able to detect certain pollutants (oxides of nitrogen) so you could still get an MOT with an illegal car. (Which is why so many people drive about with cats and DPFs removed and claim their cars are still "road legal" because they've got an MOT). Similarly, the rolling road brake test cannot possibly check for front-to-rear brake imbalance (or indeed, many of the criteria that are legally required under C&U) so there will be plenty of people driving round illegally because they've "uprated" the brakes at one end of the car but not the other.

Lastly, signwriting a vehicle isn't "dangerous" because of the wording, insurers view a signwritten vehicle as being used "commercially". If someone is insured for private use, statistically, they carry a lower risk than someone who used their car for business use. As has been said by plenty on here, the insueres can (and do) refuse to pay out if the car isn't being used the way they were told it was (regardless of whether or not the modifications made the car technically unsafe to drive or not).

So it seems owning/driving a car in the UK is even worse than in (Don't mention the War...) Germany with all it's tight and stupid TUV rules...
Happy to live in Holland, where it's free and more or less legal to modify a car, as long as it's safe...

I think it's important to understand the difference between something being "illegal" and something being "likely to get you prosecuted". De-cats, DPF removals and many remaps are illegal, but few people ever get prosecuted. The police simply don't have the resources or the technical know-how to pursue a proseccution, unless there's enough money in the potential fines to make it worth their while. I've been involved in the odd bit of expert witness work and it's a sad fact of life that unless there has been a fatality, many technical contraventions are simply not pursued. I have no experience of the Dutch system, but I imagine it will be much the same. plenty of echnically illegal things will be ignored by the authorities UNLESS the stakes are high enough to make it worth their while.

Just had my MOT today and i was talking to the guys in the garage about it and basically said 'ermm well it's not illegal as such but you won't pass an MOT' to which I replied 'unless I know someone' and that's when he nodded haha

"Frankly, a copper with 30 years experience really ought to know that" Why would a police officer in another country need to know the law that applies in the UK? That is one asinine comment! I am led to believe that our NCT test is far more stringent that your MoT test. I am fully aware that a car can pass a test and in reality that test is only valid for that day, this applies more so to commercial vehciles which generally travel more under harsher conditions. Our test will NOT PASS a car that does not comply with current road traffic legislation, this even extends to design of number plates and other small items. Our emissions test is very stringent also like wise for braking and suspension, imbalance is a BIG test faiure issue! We have only had a test in relatively recent times and perhaps we got the most modern at the time! Testing older vehicles is a strange one as the equipment is calibrated to modern standards and therefore certain vehicles never met the criteria!

digger58 said:

<SNIP?
Our test will NOT PASS a car that does not comply with current road traffic legislation, this even extends to design of number plates and other small items. Our emissions test is very stringent also like wise for braking and suspension, imbalance is a BIG test faiure issue! We have only had a test in relatively recent times and perhaps we got the most modern at the time!
<SNIP>

Click to expand...

I disagree, the NCT manual https://www.ncts.ie/media/1004/nct-manual-july-2014.pdf says "The test is a maintenance and condition check. A detailed assessment of a vehicle’s design and construction is not part of the test."
A quick look shows it is very similar to the UK MOT. For example the emissions are no more stringent, They are standard EU tests and there is no NOx test. There is some added sophistication such as automated suspension testing, but it's clearly not a full roadworthiness and regulatory compliance test like the UK SVA inspection that is required for imports, low production vehicles, kit cars or significantly modified vehicles.

Robert G8RPI.

Two points.
Insurance is about risk, and is like a legal gamble. The insurance company assesses you as a risk and sets a premium, knowing he may have to pay out millions if it all goes wrong. Their assessment is initially made based on who you are, age, gender, location, job, and the historic risks associated with that make and model of car, etc. Any modification gives an insight into your attitude and historical claims data will help the insurer assess the risk differently. If you fail to advise of a modification, they have not had the opportunity to properly assess the risk, or have assessed it on incomplete data, so they have the right not to pay out.
I have DRLs on my car (in place of the foglights), advised and made no difference to the premium. But if damaged, insurance company will only repair to original spec. (Replacing a foglight will cost them more!) Also advise that I fit winter tyres, appreciated by the ins co, but no difference to premiums.

Any signwriting on a car could indicate that it is used for business, so may need business insurance. So a police officer is justified in asking about this. As are the insurance company. Most insurance policies allow commuting to place of work, but not use for work, so you can't pop off to a meeting in it. The piano tuner may need to have a discussion with his insurers as to how they view his usage.
Signwriting advertising another business could require different insurance. I'd suppose insurers will all view this differently. A sticker from the dealer is usual so not important, but a sign on the door advertising them needs discussion.

g8rpi said:

I disagree, the NCT manual https://www.ncts.ie/media/1004/nct-manual-july-2014.pdf says "The test is a maintenance and condition check. A detailed assessment of a vehicle’s design and construction is not part of the test."
A quick look shows it is very similar to the UK MOT. For example the emissions are no more stringent, They are standard EU tests and there is no NOx test. There is some added sophistication such as automated suspension testing, but it's clearly not a full roadworthiness and regulatory compliance test like the UK SVA inspection that is required for imports, low production vehicles, kit cars or significantly modified vehicles.

Robert G8RPI.

Click to expand...

What do you disagree with? We are required to have the county of registration on the plate in Irish, This is a failure if it's not there! Nothing to do with safety! Of course they are not checking the design or construction of a vehicle, that has already been done at vast expense to the manufacturer for type approval. It is of course a roadworthiness test, if it fails on a serious fault then it is an offence to drive it on the public road after failure of the test, Don't forget that the tester has informed the owner/driver of its condition and therefore you cannot plead that you didn't know of the fault, Driving a vehicle like that in a public place is therefore by definition "Dangerous driving" because you are now aware of a serious fault, if that isn't a roadworthiness test what is???????

digger58 said:

What do you disagree with? We are required to have the county of registration on the plate in Irish, This is a failure if it's not there! Nothing to do with safety! Of course they are not checking the design or construction of a vehicle, that has already been done at vast expense to the manufacturer for type approval. It is of course a roadworthiness test, if it fails on a serious fault then it is an offence to drive it on the public road after failure of the test, Don't forget that the tester has informed the owner/driver of its condition and therefore you cannot plead that you didn't know of the fault, Driving a vehicle like that in a public place is therefore by definition "Dangerous driving" because you are now aware of a serious fault, if that isn't a roadworthiness test what is???????

Click to expand...

As stated in my post I disagree with your cliam "Our test will NOT PASS a car that does not comply with current road traffic legislation, this even extends to design of number plates and other small items." The NCT clearly does not check for all regulatory compliance, e.g. NOx emissions. It's a clearly stated that it's a condition and maintenance check. NOx is an on-going issue not just type approval (if you drive a VAG diesel even that is in doubt, how come the NCT didn't pick that up ). You are now changing your statement to "a roadworthiness test" and safety check which is different from complying with all road traffic legislation. Much legislation is not directly related to safety e.g. numberplates which have no safety function other than being auxiliary reflectors. The requirements for font and spacing are for enforcement, not safety. We will have to agree to disagree.

Robert G8RPI.

digger58 said:

"Frankly, a copper with 30 years experience really ought to know that" Why would a police officer in another country need to know the law that applies in the UK? That is one asinine comment! I am led to believe that our NCT test is far more stringent that your MoT test. I am fully aware that a car can pass a test and in reality that test is only valid for that day, this applies more so to commercial vehciles which generally travel more under harsher conditions. Our test will NOT PASS a car that does not comply with current road traffic legislation, this even extends to design of number plates and other small items. Our emissions test is very stringent also like wise for braking and suspension, imbalance is a BIG test faiure issue! We have only had a test in relatively recent times and perhaps we got the most modern at the time! Testing older vehicles is a strange one as the equipment is calibrated to modern standards and therefore certain vehicles never met the criteria!

Click to expand...

As has already been pointed out to you, your periodic roadworthiness inspection is broadly similar to ours, and no, it can't check whether the vehicle complies with all applicable legislation. (Nor can it check front-to rear brake balance). I think what you MEANT to say was "Our test will NOT PASS a car that does not comply with whatever elements of current road traffic legislation it checks for". The ROI model for road vehicle technical legislation isn't all that different to ours in principle.