Fitting LED bulbs may technically be illegal they say, but there is no law in place to enforce it. MOT stations will pass it[see gp section for full story]
Insurance company's are not bothered either
Don't be scared of the ANTI LED POLICE and if you want to fit LED bulbs to your pride and joy GO AHEAD!
LUIGI

2668GRIFFIN said:

Fitting LED bulbs may technically be illegal they say, but there is no law in place to enforce it. MOT stations will pass it[see gp section for full story]
Insurance company's are not bothered either
Don't be scared of the ANTI LED POLICE and if you want to fit LED bulbs to your pride and joy GO AHEAD!
LUIGI

Click to expand...

Sorry Luigi you give poor and ill advised advise IMHO.

Insurance companies DO bother. If you want to modify your car then fine but ensure you have got their approval in writing on the policy (which comes via the underwriters) and not the insurance clerk on the end of the phone.

My insurance company when I asked about changing my reversing light from bulb to MOT put me on hold whilst they contacted the underwriters. Underwriters came back with reversing light is OK because their are basically no restrictive laws for these but for all other units the are homologated for either bulb, HID or LED use and one can legally only replace the complete unit and take care of any self levelling and cleaning functions required (over 2000 lumens). All such changes need to be *accepted* and recorded on the policy to be covered by your insurance as do all vehicle alterations.

As for LEDs not failing an MOT they can, especially on DRLs. DRLs are MOT tested to correctly operate in conjunction with headlamps. Proper DRLs should dim when headlamps are turned on. Some P21W LED replacements can not operate correctly with voltages below 12V. Some won't illuminate at all and others will flicker.

This is not a case of the LED / modifications police. Anybody can do what the hell they like but don't expect insurance companies to pay out. They are perfectly entitled to not pay out / cover you if you have not disclosed relevant facts (e.g. modifications) to them and certainly so if that modification was a factor in the accident (eg. dazzling someone) or theft (boy racer liked you Recaro racing seat and full harness set-up).

I can assure you they WILL protect their interests and wriggle like mad come a claim time. Not only could you be seriously out of pocket (for the rest of your life if a lifelong incapacitation or death is involved), you will be prosecuted by the real police for driving without valid insurance.

Your choice, not mine.

My led DRLS are a retro fit and do dim with side lights on and do not flicker
Mine work by a five terminal relay and a resister to dim them by half power as my DRL working voltage is between 3 and 16 volts
Like I said I have been running led bulbs since they were first available with no issues from MOT POLICE OR INSURANCE COMPANIES, and when I asked about them to my insurance company there were no issues there as the mot proved that they were working within the law
You obviously don't have or want them on you vehicle and your response is exactly the same as all people that love old fashioned bulbs that have been around since Edison invented them.
If they are that good we would still be using them in our homes and led bulb replacements for these don't require home insurance approval there!
Same applies to cars.... a lot of car insurance scaremongering is based on heresy and gossip
Luigi

As stated in the other related thread, having your insurance cancelled after an accident because of an illegal or un disclosed modification does NOT leave you liable to proscecution for driving without insurance. It has to be cancelled (and you notified if done by insurance Co.) or you failing to pay before the accident or getting stopped.
I'd really lie to retrofit LED lights BUT I'm aware of the optical and legal reasons why this is not a good or legal idea.
Insurance brokers and MOT testers do not determine legality, the courts do that. The comment "there were no issues there as the mot proved that they were working within the law" is nonsense because the MOT oes not check type approval conformity. Did you tell your inurance company in writing thet you made the modification? The comment "working within the law" is their get-out clause as its patent that they are not.

You can do what you like, just don't tell othes it legal when is not.


Robert G8RPI
(I have professional training and qualification in this type of techo-legal issue)

Well despite all the other views then the Financial Ombudsmen clearly state that "Misrepresentation and non-disclosure" are valid reasons for insurers to cancel/void a policy NOT pay out in the event of a claim.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/insurance/misrep-and-non-disclosure

All insurance policies require the policy holder to notify all changes, including modifications during the policy period. Failure to do so is the same as non-disclosure at the time of taking the policy.

Like I said legal modifications are OK but still require disclosure to ensure you are insured. The MOT is a basic vehicle safety and emission test and not a detailed legality test.

My insurer confirmed to me that fitting LEDs into compulsory road lighting units not homologated for for/with LEDs is illegal and would void my insurance and they would not cover them even if disclosed.

Your experiences and interpretations may be different but fights with insurance companies are never a good idea and the FOS has already detailed valid reasons for insurance policies being invalidated which they support. And as the FOS is the final arbiter then things do not look that good.

I've also taken the time and effort to did a little deeper into UK insurance law.

Read this link carefully:

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-615-6445?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1#co_anchor_a775875

Points to note are regarding the insurers right to "avoid" (legal term) any policy either before or after a claim.

Also note the Third Party is not also guaranteed compensation - "However, as a general principle, the third party will have no better right against the insurer than the insolvent insured would have had." so when you injure someone and the insurer avoids the policy claim then the third party will go after you for full damages. When you become insolvent the the third part can look to the insurer but there is no guarantee. The only guarantee is that you will be insolvent and/or paying for years to come.

If you disclose a modification/alteration and get it accepted by the insurer then there are no problems what so ever (I would still like to see it written on the policy/schedule).