Henry Ford III wrote: » Compliance with the laws relating to driving isn't optional. Having valid insurance is one of them as you know. I understand where you are coming from on this. You want increased performance, and you want cover that suits your budget too. Unfortunately cheap performance insurance isn't available but that doesn't give anyone a carte blanche to ignore that and drive on voidable policies.
Del2005 wrote: » I've a 300+ bhp car and my insurance is wayy higher than if I had a 100 bhp car. Go to your insurance company and get a quote for a 90bhp car and then for its 130bhp model sibling, the quote will be higher for the more powerful car. So by remapping a car to higher power you will definitely be increasing the insurance risk so you should be paying the appropriate amount.
rex-x wrote: » I want cover AT ALL. I am happy to pay 1.5k but there are no companies right now offering cover for any price, full stop. You must understand from a legal point I have insurance, I cannot be done for no insurance or any other offense by the state. the only retribution can be handed out by the insurance companies. I would liken it to the vintners association requiring a licence before you can drink alcohol but to get one you must prove you have never been drunk before. The licence is required by law. Would you stop drinking?
Henry Ford III wrote: » You have voidable cover. In the event of a 3rd party claim and discovery of your non disclosure you would be pursued for recovery of any claim paid out. You'd become uninsurable too. You're also commiting a criminal act by non disclosing. I'll ignore the strawman
rex-x wrote: » I am already "uninsurable" As I said find me someone who has been punished criminally for non disclosure?
Henry Ford III wrote: » Then you are in trouble unfortunately. Best bet is to try and find your way out of it. Why not buy a more powerful car in standard tune?
Henry Ford III wrote: » Why not buy a more powerful car in standard tune?
shietpilot wrote: » Insurance companies cannot expect people to declare modifications if they don't provide a reasonable method of declaring them without being told to fcuk off nicely. I sort of feel they do this on purpose so they can always have the option of getting their money back by pursuing claims where a car with undeclared modifications is involved, not that I've ever heard of this happening.
Henry Ford III wrote: » Yes they can, and the law is totally on their side too. They have no duty to "quote you happy" either.
shietpilot wrote: » Well it's not right considering having third party insurance cover is a legal requirement. It should be possible to be insured on any car with a valid NCT at a reasonable cost, not bank loan figures.
Henry Ford III wrote: » There's no such thing as "appropriate" in insurance. Insurers set their rates according to their own underwriting criteria. Premiums aren't always fair and if you don't like them you seek an alternative elsewhere. If you can't get a remapped (or any other) car covered then legally you can't drive it on public roads.
amf78 wrote: » Then you advocate governments empowering 3rd parties (private businesses in this case) to screw people over as they please. As long as a car isn't deemed unsafe, nobody should have the right/authority to prevent you from using it, least of all without justification. Refusal of coverage is just that, because of the leeway & authority given by the state to insurance companies, who aren't even government bodies. I know the law is the law and 2 wrongs doesn't make one right, but you must see how the current situation in Ireland encourages people to do things their own way.
amf78 wrote: » okay maybe i'm too stupid to comprehend, so we'll take it baby steps.. 1. driving with insurance is a legal requirement 2. only insurance companies can provide insurance cover 3. insurance companies set criteria and prices as they please _____________________________ |-> insurance companies dictate as they please who's road legal and who's not...
Henry Ford III wrote: » In a nutshell yes. However:- No private insurer (any sane one anyhow) will have premiums and underwriting dictated to them by anyone. They are free to take on or decline whatever business they wish. In addition anyone is free to set up a new operation here and enter the market. You can't have cheap modified car insurance simply because you want it!
rex-x wrote: » You mention cheap, suits your pocket etc. Its not available period, at ANY price! You need to get this into your head. Nobody should be forced off the road by a private company. They should not be allowed to refuse a quote to anybody given its a legal requirement to have insurance and I think eventually the government will be moving that way....albeit slowly
Cows Go µ wrote: » If they won't quote, you go to the declined cases committee and you are guaranteed a quote. It will be high but you will get a quote.
rex-x wrote: » Not when they decline due to modifications. I said earlier in this thread I have tried and they don't deal with that situation
Henry Ford III wrote: » I think you are possibly being a bit economical with the truth here? You said previously that you had a remapped car insured with Liberty and were paying a loading for it for years. Fair enough. You also said that 2 years ago they refused to renew. You started a thread on it saying you got a "P.F.O." letter, and when they offered to re-examine it you didn't bother engaging. When questioned you then said they offered cover on a standard car only. My understanding is they were obliged offer renewal terms for the car "as was". It just doesn't add up.
rex-x wrote: » Whats wrong with that, it all adds up? They were obliged to renew but wanted me to go away. I wasn't going to fight with them to take my money so I went elsewhere and started my criminal career of non disclosure I didn't just make up posts 2 years ago in preparation for this thread today :pac: I rang the insurance board to see about a declined cases quote but was told they do not help in this situation. You are free to ring them yourself to confirm. The insurance company are legally required to offer a renewal under the same terms but often they don't, they send out PFO letters in the hope people will leave. This is illegal but they wait for a wrap on the knuckles and chance it anyway. Does it make them criminals in the same way I am for non disclosure? Both are "illegal"
Henry Ford III wrote: » Having paid rated premiums for years why didn't you press Liberty for proper renewal terms? That makes no sense. Then starting a thread about it, getting a reply offering to re examine it, and then just abandoning it. That makes no sense either. You knew that going elsewhere and not disclosing mods. would possibly get you into trouble. Was it a financial thing to save a few € on the premium? If it was it's a false economy.
BrownFinger wrote: » A friend of mine is in the traffic core. He told me next year they are introducing a road side remapping check point.
rex-x wrote: » Because I wasn't going to force a company who had IMO wronged me and pissed me off to take my money. If you have a bad meal you don't force the restaurant to let you eat there over and over..... I had enough. They offered to re examine it but in PM's and on the phone the re-examining was to get a new car. The thread was a public vent at the situation. It had nothing to do with money, as I said I'm happy to pay big bucks but nobody wants to take it
Mc Love wrote: » Possible scare-mongering perhaps? The rumour has been going around a few years. A friend of mine bought a car in good faith and got it insured, yet only found out it had the DPF taken out and was remapped when he brought it in for a service, should he declare the same to the insurance company and then not be able for cover? The only option (a costly one still) would be to de-map the car and put the DPF put back in.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3eed4eebba3cfb0464ef9eff4317993.svg)
