PPF on the car have you declared it with insurance? INSURANCE VOIDED

[GeeJayW]

PPF ???

Insurance ombudsman is your friend

Spoiler alert - the insurance ombudsman assessed the case. They ruled in favour of the OP and ordered AXA to:
- make good on the claim
- pay for the repair(s)
- remove any reference to voiding his insurance from any affected databases
- pay compensation to the OP

 

[ToeKnee]

Spoiler alert - the insurance ombudsman assessed the case. They ruled in favour of the OP and ordered AXA to:
- make good on the claim
- pay for the repair(s)
- remove any reference to voiding his insurance from any affected databases
- pay compensation to the OP

I bet AXA have changed their wording now though to include PPF as a declared modification!

 

[oldguy57]

Spoiler alert - the insurance ombudsman assessed the case. They ruled in favour of the OP and ordered AXA to:
- make good on the claim
- pay for the repair(s)
- remove any reference to voiding his insurance from any affected databases
- pay compensation to the OP

I wouldn't have thought that there was any doubt about the outcome. If Insurers don't like PPF it would be easy to insert a general clause in the policy along the lines of " In the event of loss or damage we will not be responsible for the cost of removing and/or reinstating the cost of paint protection film or similar coating" Not really difficult is it? I would guess that most owners would not regard ppf as a modification in the usual sense of the term. I'm actually surprised at AXA , one of the few Insurers I never had to challenge in my insurance career, but times change,

 

[GeeJayW]

I bet AXA have changed their wording now though to include PPF as a declared modification!

I certainly hope that AXA learned something from this. Being reasonable with their customers would be a start, but that would probably be a step too far…

 

[st13phil]

Spoiler alert - the insurance ombudsman assessed the case. They ruled in favour of the OP

I wouldn't have thought that there was any doubt about the outcome.

Actually, having read the Ombudsman's ruling, it seems that the key factor leading to them ruling against the insurer was that the insured had used an aggregator site to provide his details.

The insurer asked a simple question in their proposal process: "Has the car been modified in any way?", but the aggregator had added an explanation that stated, "A modification is any change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance enhancement."

If the original question about modifications had stood unqualified, then my suspicion is that the Ombudsman would have had to find in favour of the insurer, but the supplementary explanation specifically mentions various things that are considered to be modifications and it's hard to see how PPF is analogous to any of those examples.

On a broader point, certain cars were always delivered from the factory with PPF in some locations. One example would be the PPF on the trailing edges of the rear doors and the leading edges of the rear wheel arches on the CLS. How could the "average consumer" be expected to know whether this was a modification or not?

 

[BTB 500]

Actually, having read the Ombudsman's ruling, it seems that the key factor leading to them ruling against the insurer was that the insured had used an aggregator site to provide his details.

The insurer asked a simple question in their proposal process: "Has the car been modified in any way?", but the aggregator had added an explanation that stated, "A modification is any change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance enhancement."

If the original question about modifications had stood unqualified, then my suspicion is that the Ombudsman would have had to find in favour of the insurer, but the supplementary explanation specifically mentions various things that are considered to be modifications and it's hard to see how PPF is analogous to any of those examples.

The examples clearly weren't a definitive list though ("That includes things like ..."), and did mention paintwork

The whole 'modification' thing is pretty inconsistent as factory-fitted options count for some companies/sites whereas others specifically exclude them.

 

[st13phil]

The examples clearly weren't a definitive list though ("That includes things like ..."), and did mention paintwork

Indeed, but my reading of the adjudication is that the Ombudsman's view was that the extra text created doubt over whether the proposer had failed to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation and they therefore found against the insurer.

The whole 'modification' thing is pretty inconsistent as factory-fitted options count for some companies/sites whereas others specifically exclude them.

I couldn't agree more. There is massive inconsistency across different insurers as to what comprises a modification, leading to honest people being "caught out". I know the retort to that is "well you should ask if you're uncertain", but with so much of the motor insurance policy proposal process being online and it being relatively difficult to actually speak with someone to ask the question(s) it's not surprising that most people don't do that.

 

[GeeJayW]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Most times I've insured modified cars the premium has actually been less than the stocker....but only if your broker uses specialist insurers of modded cars.....just adding mods to your regular policy will cost you more though.

I have a heavily modified car which I’m thinking of applying PPF too. I mentioned it and they just added it to the policy, no charge, but it’s with a specialist insurer as you suggest above. The broker said that even if I don’t ever PPF it then there is no harm in adding it to the policy - that way I am covered if I ever decide to do it.

 

[st13phil]

I mentioned it and they just added it to the policy, no charge, but it’s with a specialist insurer as you suggest above.

I guess the reason is that the bulk providers (Admiral, Direct Line, Aviva, et al) don't want to pay for an underwriter to make an upfront assessment of risk for any modifications, so simply either blankly refuse cover or offer to cover for an unattractive price in the hope you'll take your business elsewhere.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I guess the reason is that the bulk providers (Admiral, Direct Line, Aviva, et al) don't want to pay for an underwriter to make an upfront assessment of risk for any modifications, so simply either blankly refuse cover or offer to cover for an unattractive price in the hope you'll take your business elsewhere.

I’d say so too.

 

[oldguy57]

Actually, having read the Ombudsman's ruling, it seems that the key factor leading to them ruling against the insurer was that the insured had used an aggregator site to provide his details.

The insurer asked a simple question in their proposal process: "Has the car been modified in any way?", but the aggregator had added an explanation that stated, "A modification is any change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance enhancement."

If the original question about modifications had stood unqualified, then my suspicion is that the Ombudsman would have had to find in favour of the insurer, but the supplementary explanation specifically mentions various things that are considered to be modifications and it's hard to see how PPF is analogous to any of those examples.

On a broader point, certain cars were always delivered from the factory with PPF in some locations. One example would be the PPF on the trailing edges of the rear doors and the leading edges of the rear wheel arches on the CLS. How could the "average consumer" be expected to know whether this was a modification or not?

Exactly this. I would have thought that not only enthusiasts but general car buying public would regard those addenda only as constituting modification. I still maintain that the question put about mods is too vague and I used to point this type of thing out to Insurers. As others have mentioned what about none OEM tyres, air freshener, cup holders etc? It would not be difficult for an Insurer to specifically list those mods which they specifically don't like and since ppf is becoming more common this should be mentioned if necessary.
Where there is uncertainty about a contract term it always used to be the case that a decision would be against the party drawing up the contract and also if there was an unusual contract term (such as reference to ppf in this case) it had to be specifically drawn to the attention of the customer. Sadly Insurers nowadays seem to be ignorant of contract and insurance law which is why Insurers get themselves into these situations.

 

[ToeKnee]

As some of you know I've built two cobra replica's and even with specialist kit car insurance they would still ask "are there any modifications to the car", I always made a point of telling them that as a hand built car there is NO standard to compare it to but there are no modifications to when it passed its Individual Vehicle Assessment.

 

[Pontoneer]

Actually, having read the Ombudsman's ruling, it seems that the key factor leading to them ruling against the insurer was that the insured had used an aggregator site to provide his details.

The insurer asked a simple question in their proposal process: "Has the car been modified in any way?", but the aggregator had added an explanation that stated, "A modification is any change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance enhancement."

If the original question about modifications had stood unqualified, then my suspicion is that the Ombudsman would have had to find in favour of the insurer, but the supplementary explanation specifically mentions various things that are considered to be modifications and it's hard to see how PPF is analogous to any of those examples.

On a broader point, certain cars were always delivered from the factory with PPF in some locations. One example would be the PPF on the trailing edges of the rear doors and the leading edges of the rear wheel arches on the CLS. How could the "average consumer" be expected to know whether this was a modification or not?

With a traditional Mercedes-Benz , where there was no radio or stereo system specified as standard equipment , and such was either a factory option or fitted by the customer after delivery , audio equipment can never be a modification , therefore I see no need to mention it - my audio equipment is always to my own specification , and not part of the car .

 

[whitenemesis]

With a traditional Mercedes-Benz , where there was no radio or stereo system specified as standard equipment , and such was either a factory option or fitted by the customer after delivery , audio equipment can never be a modification , therefore I see no need to mention it - my audio equipment is always to my own specification , and not part of the car .

Would you expect your insurer to replace the audio equipment in the event of a loss?

 

[ChrisPDuck]

Another data point:
I phoned my insurers to tell them about my new tow bar and my new Carplay adapter, and to ask about any implications of adding a clear vinyl bumper protector on the top surface, to protect the new paint that's being applied to the bumper as I type.

Tow bar: No problem - no need to notify us
Carplay adapter: No change to the premium, but it's notifiable so we'll put it on file
Bumper protector: Classified as PPF - no need to notify us because it doesn't change the look of the car. I assume therefore that if I was planning instead to use, say, one with a 'carbon fibre' appearance, rather than clear vinyl, then it would change the look, and therefore would be classified differently.

Anyway, none of those things resulted in a change to the premium, but the guy on the phone wanted to charge me £13 'admin fee' for adding the Carplay device to my file. And he had the nerve to tell me that as a 'goodwill gesture' that was the reduced 'online' fee, and not the normal 'phone' fee! It's as though they're discouraging people to tell them about modifications. I complained, and the guy got approval to waive the fee, because I'm a longstanding customer, so for that reason I won't name the company.

 

[BIGDOG]

Would you expect your insurer to replace the audio equipment in the event of a loss?

Might be worth more than the car.

 

[markjay]

Would you expect your insurer to replace the audio equipment in the event of a loss?

As far as I know, radio (audio) is always a separate line item for insurers? And there's a specific cover limit.

 

[markjay]

Anyway, none of those things resulted in a change to the premium, but the guy on the phone wanted to charge me £13 'admin fee' for adding the Carplay device to my file. And he had the nerve to tell me that as a 'goodwill gesture' that was the reduced 'online' fee, and not the normal 'phone' fee! It's as though they're discouraging people to tell them about modifications. I complained, and the guy got approval to waive the fee, because I'm a longstanding customer, so for that reason I won't name the company.

We're your mates, and you sold us out for 13 quid...........?

 

[Pontoneer]

Would you expect your insurer to replace the audio equipment in the event of a loss?

No , never have .

If a car was crashed , it might be repaired , or might not . Either way , I would ( and have in the past ) recover(ed) my audio equipment to reinstall in another car ( I have never claimed for crash damage to any car in about 40 years ) .

I have never had a car stolen , nor anything stolen from it , and again mere money would not source a replacement for the kit I have , but I do have enough audio components to kit out three or four cars .