Decat and insurance

[Dal]

A question brought up on another forum:

If a decat won't pass an MOT, how can a car with a decat and all mods declared for insurance be insured when it's technically illegal and non roadworthy?
Do insurance companies willingly insure non roadworthy cars?

Thoughts?

 

[PhilLew]

Do insurance companies willingly insure non roadworthy cars?

Yes, they'll take your money and insure anything whether it's roadworthy or not.....

They just won't pay out if it's not roadworthy at the time of a claim :grin:

 

[quest63]

They are happy to accept your valuation of your car when you insure it and charge you accordingly, but inevitably dont accept your car as being worth what you paid for it if you have to claim. The original post is just another example of them doing anything they feel like and getting away with it.

My company charges more for putting your car in a garage, when I asked why they said its because drivers may drive their car into the back wall.

So not only no discount on Manchesters horrendous rates which must to a great degree be due to car crime, but charged more for making it more secure.

 

[Ginger Tom]

Insurance is the biggest legalised con IMO

 

[andyhyper]

They are happy to accept your valuation of your car when you insure it and charge you accordingly, but inevitably dont accept your car as being worth what you paid for it if you have to claim. The original post is just another example of them doing anything they feel like and getting away with it.

My company charges more for putting your car in a garage, when I asked why they said its because drivers may drive their car into the back wall.

So not only no discount on Manchesters horrendous rates which must to a great degree be due to car crime, but charged more for making it more secure.

totally agree,my pum with my sportex system declared is 500 and for 13 quid more could have a stock focus st2,and for 700 a stock focus rs! next time might play daft and say that i dont know a mod from a stock part.and my cover is 30 quid a year more on the drive,not on the cul de sac i live in!

 

[quest63]

Well clearly if its on your drive there is a much higher chance of Santa claus falling off your roof and crushing your car, not to mention the pontential for paint damage due to reindeer sh*t plopping down on it :roll:

The whole topic of Third party and Third party fire and theft costing more than fully comp is a crime in itself.In effect it largely no longer exists. I believe the insurance companies position on this is that if your insuring third party the cars likely not maintained or driven with any care as you dont care about it at all,and therefore your a higher risk.

This extreme bias shoud be balanced by insurance being optional. I wonder how many legitimate claims are not made because people are afraid to claim and lose their no claims. Which incidentally I think may actually be an offense as you have not declared an accident.

 

[warrenpenalver]

A few points.

An MoT test does not garuntee roadworthyness.

In certain circumstances it is perfectly legal to drive without and MoT and be insured as long as the vehicle is considered roadworthy. In fact there have been many accidents where subsequently it has been found a vehicle has no mot yet the insurer could not refuse a pay out as inspections found the vehicle road worthy.

The only aspect of emissions testing which is roadworthyness related is smoke/particulate visual testing (the minimum standard for some older cars). The rest is all about environmental legislation and nothing whatsoever to do with roadworthyness.

eg an older car eligible for a smoke test is just as roadworthy as a modern euro 5 standard engine equiped vehicle despite the difference in emission regulations.

An even more close example is a ford puma fitted with a pre-1992 engine (such as mine) being subject to pre-cat emissions standards. Even a normal puma 1.7 with a decat pushes out less pollution than my car. It would be rediculous to imply mine is roadworthy yet a decatted 1.7 puma is not road worthy despite putting out less gasses.

A lot of road legislation has nothing to do with roadworthyness or safety but is about environmental or other legislation.

People often think because something may be illegal, it must therefore be unsafe.

Its the same arguement with speeding being dangerous. the law does not agree that speeding is always dangerous, hence many cases of significant speeding are found not guilty of dangerous driving.

Same with number plate legislation, displaying road tax etc etc etc etc.

Also a lot of people confuse insurance policy rules with legislation. There is no legal requirement to declare accidents to insurers. In fact there is no legal requirement to declare anything. However failure to do so may render your insurance void leaving you driving illegally. And deliberate deceit may be considered fraud. But that is not the same as saying "its a legal requirement to declare x, y and z".

Prime example is penalty points for most common offences count for 3 years for totting purposes, stay on license for 4 years. yet insurers demand to know about them for 5 years. You could argue insurers are in breach of the principles of the "rehabilitation of offenders act" (and in fact they often are with insuring former offenders who are required to declare past crimes for LIFE with insurance and pay hiked premiums for LIFE).

 

[All that jazz]

Do insurance companies willingly insure non roadworthy cars?

Yes, they'll take your money and insure anything whether it's roadworthy or not.....

They just won't pay out if it's not roadworthy at the time of a claim :grin:

This ^.

100% true.

You can give them any details you want and they'll knock you up an insurance certificate, but make a claim and you may as well file it in the nearest bin for all the good it'll do you.

 

[Dal]

I expect that as you now have to either insure your car or SORN it, there's nothing to stop you insuring a car that isn't roadworthy (whatever that means) as you may never intend to take it on the road.

 

[PhilLew]

I'm sure there are many people with 'projects' in bits in the garage that are insured and may never be roadworthy ever again :grin: :grin: :grin:

 

[warrenpenalver]

Theres plenty of "laid up" policies for project cars, resto's, kit cars etc.

Completely seperate to government mandated minimum third party cover.

There is no reason to keep a full policy on a laid up/resto car unless you need the NCB.

I do think insurance is a great rip off these days and seriously needs regulation. Even the NCB rules are unfair, eg takes you 4 years to get decent NCB yet dont drive for 18 months on some policies and you loose the lot.... You can insure a second car on a seperate policy despite having decades of NCB and yet none of it counts towards the second policy and you get treated just the same as someone with no experience. Yes there are some multicar policies but they arent the best value and often only good on standardish cars.

 

[PhilLew]

slightly off topic (sorry Dal) but another insurance gripe.

NCB. why do you never actually get the % they advertise?

I have just done a price comparison for my new car (a big cat but not puma :wink: ) and just for fun I got a second quote and the only detail I altered was the number of years NCB, changed from 15 years to 0 years

Most of the major companies quoted a price which was only 56% or 57% less than the 0 NCB quote for the 15 year quote.

They all advertise a rate of 75% for max NCB but if they dont quote that for 15 years what do you have to do to get it?

BTW Swinton weren't the cheapest but did give the biggest discount at 66%