Remapping implications

rex-x · 16-08-2017 01:13PM

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.

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?

Ron Burgundy II · 16-08-2017 01:15PM

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.

I went from a 2.0 TDi 140bhp passat to a 1.4TSi 150bhp golf and got a refund from my insurance company. I know the power increase is small circa 6% but still got a reduction in my insurance. Now I may be an exception to the rule.

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 01:22PM

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?

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 · 16-08-2017 01:26PM

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

I am already "uninsurable"
As I said find me someone who has been punished criminally for non disclosure?

Micky 32 · 16-08-2017 01:33PM

Qoutedevil are advertising on the radio if you're 30+ they'll insure a "chipped" car but i suspect have a few jars of vaseline around though ;-)

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 01:39PM

rex-x wrote: »

I am already "uninsurable"
As I said find me someone who has been punished criminally for non disclosure?

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?

rex-x · 16-08-2017 01:42PM

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?

It is 300hp already standard.....it could be 1000hp and people would still like more

P.S. By uninsurable I meant because of my car, I have 0 points etc etc

tossy · 16-08-2017 01:43PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Why not buy a more powerful car in standard tune?

Then remap it

shietpilot · 16-08-2017 01:45PM

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 · 16-08-2017 01:51PM

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.

Yes they can, and the law is totally on their side too.

They have no duty to "quote you happy" either.

shietpilot · 16-08-2017 01:56PM

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.

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.

grogi · 16-08-2017 02:01PM

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.

Absolutely. The market for the legally required insurance needs more regulation.

I don't know if that would fly, but I think a standard set of questions, such as:

- power of the vehicle (might be tuned - declare best to your knowledge)
- max allowed curb weight of the vehicle
- NCT expiry date
- vehicle purchase date - newly purchased cheap cars are bigger risk
- age and experience of all drivers

should be sufficient to provide a quote for the purpose of TPL insurance alone. Majority of that data the insurer could get on their own, solely based on the registration number...

amf78 · 16-08-2017 02:16PM

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.

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.

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 02:27PM

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.

That's incorrect. I'm not advocating anything.

Motor insurance is a legal requirement. The availability and pricing of it is decided on the various insurers competing, and their rates and underwriting.

It's not cheap though I agree, but that's not because of anyone's wish to screw anyone else. It's down to claims frequency and court awards, legal costs, and also bogus and fraudulent claims. The Irish market isn't a goldmine for huge profits - if it was there'd be a queue of new underwriters looking for a slice of it and prices would fall due to increased competition.

A reasonable risk will get a reasonable premium in general, and if not there's generally a fairly good reason for it.

Modified cars aren't attractive risks. It's as simple as that.

amf78 · 16-08-2017 02:36PM

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 · 16-08-2017 02:43PM

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...

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 · 16-08-2017 02:50PM

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!

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 · 16-08-2017 02:52PM

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

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 · 16-08-2017 02:59PM

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.

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 · 16-08-2017 03:06PM

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

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 · 16-08-2017 03:13PM

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.

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 · 16-08-2017 03:23PM

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"

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.

16-08-2017 03:28PM

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 · 16-08-2017 03:29PM

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.

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

bear1 · 16-08-2017 03:29PM

Gas craic this thread

Mc Love · 16-08-2017 03:31PM

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.

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.

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 03:42PM

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

But they were obliged to give you renewal terms on the car "as was"! It's partially your own fault for not standing your ground. You'd have been properly insured too.

So having paid loadings for years you just got the hump with Liberty and decided to go rogue elsewhere?

The logic in all that is beyond me I'm afraid.

tossy · 16-08-2017 03:43PM

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.

Are they going to start confiscating remaps ?

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2017 03:44PM

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.

Yes he should declare it. In fact he's obliged to do so. Utmost good faith and all that.

mikeecho · 16-08-2017 03:44PM

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.

11584390-c6c4-4d8c-92d2-55ea84587b7c_1.d3498f4a1bd948c9074489ab7846926d.jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF

they cant even check how many penalty points a person has at the roadside

and its Corp, not Core... and soon to be road traffic and events policing RTEP ..... or something similar

There is no legislation for them to check the ECU of your MPV at the roadside.

Remapping implications

Comments