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.
Henry Ford III wrote: » 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.
rex-x wrote: » Id like to hear your take the fact what they did is equally as illegal as what I'm doing now? They were legally obliged to offer a quote but failed to do so, any comment there? In reality I could have forced them but I was changing cars soon anyway and they would not have been obliged to quote on the new beast so it would have been a fruitless fight with a company who didn't want my custom. Not at all unreasonable I feel
CiniO wrote: » Who would be doing those checks? Gardai have nothing to do with remaps so they couldn't and insurers have no authority do to roadside checks.
Henry Ford III wrote: » I'm not sure if what you allege they did was actually illegal, or was it outside some sort of code of conduct. I suspect the latter but I just don't know. p.s. Your current insurer possibly wouldn't want your custom if they knew the whole truth either.
selectamatic wrote: » The parameters of the various readings from ecu's can change for a variety of reasons though and also many manufacturers have and still are making changes mid year and mid production therefore there isn't really any set criteria to go off. I've never heard of a case where a remapped ecu has been flagged and I've never seen a story about it causing any issues in the media so is there any evidence to suggest otherwise?
grogi wrote: » The chipped car looses the type approval - the CO2 figure is not longer applicable. As such it is not road legal... ;-)
amf78 wrote: » Actually Superchips at least maintain that the emissions don't change, and you won't fail NCT/MOT. Perhaps an argument from ignorance, but methinks we would know by now if that wasn't the case. They have been around for some time.
grogi wrote: » CO2 has nothing to do with emission fail.
amf78 wrote: » ??https://www.ncts.ie/media/1010/vir.pdf
mikeecho wrote: » 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.
kilianmanning wrote: » Anybody know what would happen if somebody had bought a car & didn't know it was remapped?
mikeecho wrote: » As long as you took out the insurance in good faith, I can't see a problem.
amf78 wrote: » and how can you prove you didn't know about it? and if you did know and choose not to disclose (for rather obvious reasons), how is your case different than those we were discussing yesterday?
bazz26 wrote: » Wouldn't it be up to the insurance company to prove that the map was done during your ownership? Ie dates the ECU parameters were changed.
Henry Ford III wrote: » No. What it would come down to legally is would a "reasonable person" know the car had a remap. If the car is way quicker than stock it'd be pretty obvious I'd imagine. If that was the case it'd be the insured duty to disclose it. Ignorance won't wash as an excuse in those circumstances.
amf78 wrote: » yet even that is very murky and hard to prove. I'm not a very perceptive driver, but I bet I'm not the only one unable to tell the difference between a factory standard BMW 320d and a mapped one, especially if I never drove one before. Maybe if I drove them side by side within minutes of each other I could, but how many people do that when buying a car? Also who bothers comparing their 0 to 100 time against the manufacturer's specs?
CathalDublin wrote: » While you should declare your car is more BHP than stock, there would be no way for Guards/Insurance company to prove your car has been mapped and is making more power than stock unless they put your car on a Dyno, my old VLC for my 150bhp golf use to say 115bhp, there wasn't even a 1.8t engine which produced 115bhp ever made, I told the insurance company as it said 115 on my insurance cert because it was taken from the VLC, they removed it and it didn't affect my premiumhttp://www.chippedire.com/faqs.php?id=10&pg_name=What_about_my_insurance
bazz26 wrote: » Sorry I don't buy into that judgement as an absolute and I don't believe it is as clear cut as you say. I'd like to see how it would stack up in court. I'm talking about a client who disputes the claim by the insurance company that they had the car remapped or were aware of it being remapped when bought. The burden of proof would need to be on the insurance company and let them pull in the so called experts to provide data from the car that shows when the changes were made and whether that was during the clients ownership. If I wasn't aware of my car being remapped by a former owner then I certainly wouldn't be letting an insurance company bully their way out of liability in that instance just by claiming it's obvious or under circumstantial facts. And also I don't believe the line "ignorance is not an excuse card" can be used in such cases as a court would not expect an average person to be an expert in the field of knowing an unmapped car v a remapped car unless proven otherwise.
