Plod & the CPS won't want to progress with this if there are any serious doubts that they'll win which is why if I was the person under the cosh I'd be refusing to accept the returned premium and insisting that I was covered. The hardest part is getting the insurer to cough up for consequential costs such as legal fees and time off work dealing with it.
Surely this isn't the issue here. It isn't a question of whether you modify a carburettor you are more likely to slip off on a muddy road. It is a question that if the bike is not as the insurers expected, then the policy is instantly invalid as they were insuring a different risk in their view. This means that you have no insurance, hence the Plod interest. This is what is worrying. Supposing you have fitted Pazzos, (as I have) and you run into something. Insurers could claim that as the brake lever was aftermarket and not OEM, then they won't pay up as that is not the risk they thought they were insuring. Or if you change a sprocket size, ditto: bike will accelerate quicker hence be "more dangerous - subject to more accidents". It's the way they invalidate your entire policy on a small mod that needs some real clarification, whether this mod is tenuously linked to the accident or not. I can't see how the view "you should have known" will stand up. How many people know what is in their lawnmower? Or kitchen blender? Or computer? Why should you know what is in your vehicle (especially if it is a second hand one).
grass in the lawnmower, fruit in the blender, chips in the computer....no idea what jets are in my carbs!
How do I stand then I have a rider policy for unlimited cc , I can ride any bike I own fully comp under this policy, plus anyone else's but only third party cover , how do I know what they've done , if for arguments sake they have fitted a big bore kit it shouldn't matter as I am covered to unlimited cc's . I bet I'd have no cover if they deemed it so. Incidentally is it only bikes , I bet if Granny Smith aged 84 ,or my mum had an accident with non std tyres and a furry dice on they'd get away with it
This is a classic case of an insurance company not paying out due to the dreaded 'non-disclosure' clause. This little scam has been running for years now and the bastards will use it at any given chance. A friend of mine owned a substantially sized garage/dealership that caught fire one evening and the insurance company wouldn't pay out because 'he' didn't declare to 'them' that other business' in the local vicinity had been burgled etc etc! Last time I saw him he was still fighting them through the courts, a process that had been going on for many years. Read 10 years minimum! The only people that win are the sodding lawyers and of course the insurance companies themselves. It ain't cricket.
insurance companies are there to make money not friends........keep fighting, it is more of a case of signing up to something ie insurance, without reading, being aware or ignoring the consequence of the small print.................so who's to blame the person going too fast for the conditions....but then my mind set only knows one position
Go with what Andy says - keep going and don't back down. Threaten the ombudsman and court action. A court will follow a logic of what is reasonable for a person to know. If the dealer did not know, how is a regular Joe to know? Does he still have a copy of the advert or sales invoice which lists the exhaust but not the jetting? If so that could be useful in supporting this line of argument. Also, I would not be falling out with the dealer. Keep him onside as he can help with this "defence" if its all goes wrong, and your friend loses,then go after the dealer. If a court decides your friend should have known then he should have known also, and he should win his case.
I'd be interested to know which companies still offer anything like the old "Rider Policy" which I had from Norwhich Union years ago, because it would make matters so much simpler. I've heard of some insurers even classifying stickers or crash bungs as "modifications". This does open up another whole can of worms though which is the question of when one offence actually invalidates an insurance policy to the extent that one can alos perhaps be charged with not having insurance at all (as distinct from the "invalidation" compromising the chances of a claim for damage). These days it seems the norm for insurance to include a clause along the lines of "the vehicle must have a current MoT certificate where one is required". As we all know, the existence of an MoT certificate is not proof of roadworthiness except at the time of the test, so the insurer is in fact here imposing a rule which is a "belt and braces" as I'm sure there is always a clause to require that the vehicle is maintained in a roadworthy condition. Now I've not heard of cases where drivers have been presecuted for lack of MoT, bald tyres, or even being drunk, where they have simultaneously been charged with being uninsured simply because they have "invalidated" the policy in some way.
There was a police bike in my local bike dealer the other day, getting an mot done, a whole month late. The guy who took it in stood with it the whole time.
I have sign writing on my car, and i had to declare it, and it is written on my insurance documents, it is not a performance upgrade by any means!! Going back to the carbs thing, or any other mod for that matter, at what point does it become uninsurable? I bet there are loads of bikes/cars with all sorts of mods out there. Definitely a sore subject if you have to deal with it
I wrote off my van a couple of months back, 8yr old Astra. I hit a 5yr old big Merc and probably did £1000+ damage to it, also the driver put in into the hands of a claim company and hired a car till his was fixed so £5k+ all in probably. My Tax expired the day of the crash so I went to tax it online straight away but my MOT had expired, by a couple of months! doh!!! I thought I was in real trouble, possibly nicked, and be paying out big time. I called Carole Nash my broker who put me through to Allainz who said provided my vehicle was roadworthy and the accident wasn't caused by faulty brakes or tyres etc. they would honour the claim. Still can't believe my luck, the assessor looked at my van, didn't check brakes or anything, just wrote it off and I got more than I thought it was worth. Maybe its all about having good broker/insurance companies. I'll be with CN for life as they've been very good every time I've needed them over the years. When I insure my bikes and modifications come up I tell them cans and they kind of say, ok is that it, as if its the norm, no big deal. Maybe a dynojet kit would get the same reaction as its only mild tuning, hardly turbo nitrous.
they were saying they get bikes in from other government agencies, and same thing. They don't let them out of their sight. Makes you wonder what's on them?
Back on topic. A mate of mine worked in insurance. He said a few years ago the FSA told the insurers they were selling a product which had to be fit for purpose and to stop dicking people about. At the time I had written off the S Type. It was all sorted and paid out in 2 weeks. I told them what I thought the car was worth by sending them two adverts from autotrader. They agreed and paid that value. That was Swiftcover. I had told them of the LPG mod, but they didn't cover that, so it was valued as a standard car. But I knew that was the case when I did the paperwork for the LPG.
A couple of years ago I tackled Bennetts (among several others) about what they consider to be 'modifications'. They sent me a list (and other companies will also provide a list if asked), and on their list were: Stickers, soft luggage and coloured screens - all, according to them, alter the market value of the bike. Stickers, for fuck sake! Could they really refuse to pay out bacause I have a Swiss vignette stuck to my screen..? It makes you wonder... Of more concern to me was soft luggage being considered a modification, and one we could not see eye to eye over (they let me cancel my policy for free over it). Before you go away on your bike make bloody sure you are covered to carry luggage.
Recent change to UK legislation re duty of disclosure on consumer insurance contracts, implementing a Law Commission recommendation (nothing whatsoever to do with Europe): the Consumer Insurance (Representations and Disclosure) Act 2012 came into force on 6 April this year. The Act itself is at: Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 Citizens Advice have some info about the Act on their website: Citizens Advice - Information you need to give an insurer Citizens Advice say that: "From 6 April 2013, you will know exactly what information you have to tell your insurer under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012. You don’t have to think about what information you must volunteer to your insurer. Your insurer must ask all the relevant questions when you take out, change or renew a policy. You must answer the insurer's questions honestly and you must take reasonable care that your replies are accurate. If you unknowingly give incorrect or incomplete information to your insurer, your insurer can’t refuse a claim. If you deliberately or carelessly withheld information or mislead your insurer, they can refuse your claim. This legal protection applies to all personal insurance, including home, car, travel, health and life cover whether the insurance is bought over the phone, face to face or online."
So, if you insure your bike online, and answer all the questions asked as accurately as you can, you should be beyond reproach in the event of a claim such as the OP's mate's, where he was not mechanically competent enough to know instinctively of any engine modifications there were on a secondhand motorcycle. Right? Or do we have to strip down and measure every component of every secondhand bike we buy, just to be sure..? The insurers are trying it on. As usual. Case closed.
In the old days when I had friends in the trade the insurance companies used to deduct the premium they would have charged had they known all the facts from the claim amount. This was normally a few quid and double excess on chaved up Novas
