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

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
but why do I need to know this, and what's the 'advice' here? What should the owner do with this information?
It's not on there for your benefit as the vehicle owner. It's like the old adage in the "memo culture" that as the recipient you should always look at who was cc'd by the author as it is they who are the true recipients of the information contained therein. It's called "CYA".
 
It's not on there for your benefit as the vehicle owner. It's like the old adage in the "memo culture" that as the recipient you should always look at who was cc'd by the author as it is they who are the true recipients of the information contained therein. It's called "CYA".

We used to do database conversions... people were using 'empty' fields to type notes.

For example, if we didn't import the 'Fax Number' field (because faxes are not really used any more), then we'd lose all these notes etc.

Not to mention the headache of having alphabetic characters in numeric-only fields, etc.
 
Some of them are...

My Suzuki had a flawless MOT history until the recent one, when the MOT tester decided to add the following (moronic) 'advisories':
- Engine cover fitted
- Under trays fitted
I know that these are only advisories.... but why oh why?????
I can go one better:

Took my 911 in for an MOT a few years back. I’d been doing quite a bit of work on it and had removed every single under tray/panel from the car and had left them off as I intended to clean them all up and the refit once I’d finished.

The car passed the MOT, with only the following advisories:

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):
  • Engine cover fitted
  • Under trays fitted
:doh:
 
We used to do database conversions... people were using 'empty' fields to type notes.
I've done a few database conversions in my time and encountered the same problem. Once it surfaces in the pilot conversion, the (ab)users responsible then expect you to magically decipher their unstructured "notes" and map them into the structured fields available in the target database.
 
I'm afraid we a guilty of that with our database at the company I work at.
Customers descriptions, how they take their tea coffee etc etc....all in the unused boxes!!! Its such an old Approach database (well before I started in 2002.....early 90s apparently) that if we ever needed to move or replace it I think it would be a massive job....if indeed even possible!!
Having just looked the earliest entry I can find is March 1993!!!
 
Its such an old Approach database
Oh dear.

No doubt running on an unsupported OS too, so more security holes than you could shake a stick at. And a complete nightmare if anyone makes a Data Subject Access Request.

Don't think I'd like to be the nominated Data Controller at that company.
 
The car passed the MOT, with only the following advisories:

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):
  • Engine cover fitted
  • Under trays fitted
:doh:

My W203 got this MOT fail once:

1698759230112.png

The parking brake on the W203 is completely manual (and worked fine).
 
What did you? Present the car again pretending to have fixed the issues? :D

They re-tested it and passed it ... presumably someone realised they'd screwed up. I was only told about the pass, so knew nothing about it till I happened to look at the online MOT history a year or two later. I tried to get DVSA to remove the fail as it was obviously an error but got nowhere and gave up in the end.
 
How the F did they think a W203 ( with a pedal in the footwell) had an electronic handbrake . The test must be bogus, the tester had to activate the parking brake one way or another to get a result ?

On a W203 the only way to get any kind of (very low quality) parking brake resistance is by pressing down on the 'handbrake' pedal with your left foot..

The mind boggles.
 
How the F did they think a W203 ( with a pedal in the footwell) had an electronic handbrake . The test must be bogus, the tester had to activate the parking brake one way or another to get a result ?
In a similar vein, some years ago my friend's Peugeot 806 got snagged for defective ABS, despite there being nary an ABS pump in sight because it was too old.

It does rather bring into question the accuracy and consistency of MoT testing at times.
 
I thought the 806 always had ABS....even the first ones in 1994......It shows that it did in my old Auto data book.......but that's not always 100% accurate to be honest.
 
Hi , I have a Mitsubishi Pajero LWB Estate car that had a 7 seat capacity.

The two rear seats I had removed because I felt they where a potential death trap if the car was rear ended crushing the occiptants.

Went to a high street broker who asked questions about the car ( grey import ) and as I said to an insurance company who am I meant to know what modifications have been done to a 20 year old car.

Mentioned the seats to them and said the insurance company may class that as a major modification.

Should also be noticed these seats generated a dangerous blind spot.

Car at present is on a SORN.
 
If seats are permanent ones then yes removing them is a notifiable modification, although it's hard to see how that would do anything than reduce risk to the insurer! You'd also have to get the V5 changed.

People carriers/MPVs have seats that are intended to be easily removed and re-fitted - I had a 7 seat VW Sharan that I ran from new with just the front 2 seats in it, and our 6 seat Vito Dualiner only has 5 seats 99% of the time.
 
If seats are permanent ones then yes removing them is a notifiable modification, although it's hard to see how that would do anything than reduce risk to the insurer! You'd also have to get the V5 changed.

People carriers/MPVs have seats that are intended to be easily removed and re-fitted - I had a 7 seat VW Sharan that I ran from new with just the front 2 seats in it, and our 6 seat Vito Dualiner only has 5 seats 99% of the time.

The OP said that the broker suggested that "the insurance company may class that as a major modification". However, this does not necessarily mean that the insurer will see it as an increased risk or raise the premium? Obviously, the insurer will need to know about it. BTW, I am guessing that the DVLA will need to be notified as well? The MOT tester might otherwise fail the car for not having seatbelts at the rear.....
 
The OP said that the broker suggested that "the insurance company may class that as a major modification". However, this does not necessarily mean that the insurer will see it as an increased risk or raise the premium?

Some companies won't cover 'modified' cars at all though, regardless of what's been done. I assume there are statistics suggesting that owners of modified vehicles are (in general) a higher risk than those with standard ones.

I am guessing that the DVLA will need to be notified as well?

Yep I mentioned about getting the V5 changed.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom