50 replies to this topic

[Bungle]

as were have 3 insurance company representatives here can i ask a question about modified minis

 

will you insure and more importantly pay out a claim for a highly modified car that is incorrectly registered with the DVLA and should of been inspected and passed a IVA test  ?

[Archived2]

Great question!!

[Lhotte]

as were have 3 insurance company representatives here can i ask a question about modified minis

 

will you insure and more importantly pay out a claim for a highly modified car that is incorrectly registered with the DVLA and should of been inspected and passed a IVA test  ?

 

If it came to light at the time of a claim that a vehicle was highly modified with a modified chassis and hasn't gone through the IVA process, there is a  very high chance the policy would be voided.

 

The IVA is a legal requirement if the chassis has been modified, we insure vehicle on Q Plates that have been highly modified. Obviously, it won't be as cheap as insuring a regular modified classic Mini as such, but we can do it.

 

But we can only cover something if the correct procedures have been followed by the owners.

 

In regards to engine changes etc, obviously it is the owners discretion as to whether or not the DVLA are notified. But as long as we are aware of the engine change, and what the new engine is, then the cover will be in place.

 

Good example I can use, my partner is currently building a space-framed 16v Turbo Mk2 Golf. It currently stands as a sell, and will have a full tubular chassis. This WILL go for an IVA and will 99.9% come out with a Q plate and will no longer be a "Volkswagen Golf" but will need to be re-registered. The whole point of the IVA is to ensure that the modifications are safe and road worthy, I trust my partners work, but I wouldn't allow him to drive the car on the road or even a track without it being tested correctly.

 

Why would you want to even drive a car that hasn't had the correct safety checks after a home-brew chassis adaption?

[Archived2]

 

as were have 3 insurance company representatives here can i ask a question about modified minis

 

will you insure and more importantly pay out a claim for a highly modified car that is incorrectly registered with the DVLA and should of been inspected and passed a IVA test  ?

 

If it came to light at the time of a claim that a vehicle was highly modified with a modified chassis and hasn't gone through the IVA process, there is a  very high chance the policy would be voided.

 

The IVA is a legal requirement if the chassis has been modified, we insure vehicle on Q Plates that have been highly modified. Obviously, it won't be as cheap as insuring a regular modified classic Mini as such, but we can do it.

 

But we can only cover something if the correct procedures have been followed by the owners.

 

In regards to engine changes etc, obviously it is the owners discretion as to whether or not the DVLA are notified. But as long as we are aware of the engine change, and what the new engine is, then the cover will be in place.

 

Good example I can use, my partner is currently building a space-framed 16v Turbo Mk2 Golf. It currently stands as a sell, and will have a full tubular chassis. This WILL go for an IVA and will 99.9% come out with a Q plate and will no longer be a "Volkswagen Golf" but will need to be re-registered. The whole point of the IVA is to ensure that the modifications are safe and road worthy, I trust my partners work, but I wouldn't allow him to drive the car on the road or even a track without it being tested correctly.

 

Why would you want to even drive a car that hasn't had the correct safety checks after a home-brew chassis adaption?

 

 

A great answer and now you all have it in black and white folks.

 

Now imagine its an accident at your fault and your insurance becomes void... Who pays for the other car?

[Bungle]

thankyou  Lhotte  i hope some members of this forum read that and start registering their minis correctly

[Archived2]

what happens if someone is injured in an accident with one of these incorrectly registered cars thats had the insurance voided?

[ibrooks]

 

If it came to light at the time of a claim that a vehicle was highly modified with a modified chassis and hasn't gone through the IVA process, there is a  very high chance the policy would be voided.

 

 

 

I don't envy you trying to defend that stance in court.

 

I'm dead against cars with modified chassis/monocoque simply carrying on without going through IVA. I put a car through SVA in 2004 and currently have a Q plate car (which costs far less to insure than my daily driver or my bog-standard classic). I've also got a Focus that will be going through IVA if I decide to complete it (although I've had a conversation with someone from DVLA who says it doesn't need it - which shows their level of technical competence). But.......

 

If you've entered into a contract to insure vehicle X which has modifications A, B, C and D then that's that. So long as the insurer has been made aware of the modifications and agreed to insure the vehicle for road risks then they can't wriggle out of their responsibilities.

 

Now if you add a clause to the contract saying that the vehicle must have gone through IVA or any other relevant test and/or start refusing to insure vehicles that haven't been through the tests then that's fine. It's also a better way of forcing these vehicles to either take the test or come off the road. I've never seen a policy with anything resembling this wording and I always go through them with a fine tooth comb after being stung by Adrian Flux (the Ombudsman agreed with me and I got my money back).

 

Unfortunately your simplistic answer only serves to show the sort of knee-jerk incorrect assumption that makes people dismiss the problem and carry on regardless.

[Bungle]

but when the insurance company asks you to list any mods that might effect the policy shouldn't    " i should of put my car for a IVA test and re registered it but haven't " be one of those things ?

[Lhotte]

 

Unfortunately your simplistic answer only serves to show the sort of knee-jerk incorrect assumption that makes people dismiss the problem and carry on regardless.

 

 

At the end of the day I don't write policies. But having been surrounded by this from a young age I have a good knowledge around it, and not just insurance.

 

I was in the scene well before I worked at HIC!

 

If you have replaced your standard Mini with a full tubular chassis, are you going to be stupid enough to not run it through an IVA.

 

I recently did the "Talk the Talk" in PVW Magazine. One of the questions reads: "What is the worst modification you have seen" my answer was a vague (apparently by your comment I am rather good at these) one, I simply replied with people who think that they are engineers and use a crappy welder to make their own chassis when in actual fact they have no idea about fabrication and the structural integrity that the chassis must have.

 

I am part of a drag race team with a 2000bhp Fuel Altered Dragster. This is a full tubular chassis. EVERY race meet it goes through scrutineering, not because we "have to" but yes we do have to, but we have a duty to ensure that the the driver (who I live with) is safe and nothing will go wrong. It's peace of mind.

 

If you, yourself, had made or adapted a chassis, would you not want a professional seal of approval before carting yourself and possibly passengers around?

 

It is not down to the insurers to ensure that the customer has followed the correct procedures outside of there insurance policy. We ask about modifications and we ask if the vehicle is Q Plated. Most people who declare this, probably have done everything correctly already, again, it is not our duty to do this for you.

 

As the registered owner and keeper of a vehicle it is THEIR responsibility.

 

Why would you want to incorrectly insure your vehicle anyway?

[ibrooks]

but when the insurance company asks you to list any mods that might effect the policy shouldn't    " i should of put my car for a IVA test and re registered it but haven't " be one of those things ?

 

No. The answer to what modifications have been done would be that the chassis/monocoque has been modified by doing x, y and z.

 

That SHOULD lead to the agent asking if it's been through IVA,

[ibrooks]

If you have replaced your standard Mini with a full tubular chassis, are you going to be stupid enough to not run it through an IVA.

 

 

No I personally wouldn't - thought I'd made that fairly clear that I've done it correctly before.

 

 

 

I recently did the "Talk the Talk" in PVW Magazine. One of the questions reads: "What is the worst modification you have seen" my answer was a vague (apparently by your comment I am rather good at these) one, I simply replied with people who think that they are engineers and use a crappy welder to make their own chassis when in actual fact they have no idea about fabrication and the structural integrity that the chassis must have.

 

 

Did I say vague somewhere? I've seen some of these horrors too.

 

 

 

I am part of a drag race team with a 2000bhp Fuel Altered Dragster. This is a full tubular chassis. EVERY race meet it goes through scrutineering, not because we "have to" but yes we do have to, but we have a duty to ensure that the the driver (who I live with) is safe and nothing will go wrong. It's peace of mind.

 

 

And you think IVA is similar to scrutineering? Are you sure you know anything about this stuff?

 

 

 

If you, yourself, had made or adapted a chassis, would you not want a professional seal of approval before carting yourself and possibly passengers around?

 

 

I have, I did and I will in the future but I'm under no illusions that just because something has passed IVA it's safe from a structural point of view. IVA includes a VERY basic and visual only check and the guys who do the tests are NOT structural engineers - they have training and guidelines on triangulation and examples of good practice but it's far from exhaustive and they are NOT qualified to say if a given frame is fit for purpose.

 

 

 

 

It is not down to the insurers to ensure that the customer has followed the correct procedures outside of there insurance policy. We ask about modifications and we ask if the vehicle is Q Plated. Most people who declare this, probably have done everything correctly already, again, it is not our duty to do this for you.

 

As the registered owner and keeper of a vehicle it is THEIR responsibility.

 

 

Nearly made my point for me - if you have been informed of all the modifications and agreed to insure it without asking about it's needing to or having gone through additional tests then it's insured.

 

 

 

Why would you want to incorrectly insure your vehicle anyway?

 

 

Thought I'd covered that - I wouldn't.

 

 

Neither you nor Bungle seem to be getting my point.

 

When talking about cars that should go through IVA you are preaching to the choir - I'm right with you that they should either go through the test or come off the road.

 

Insurance is a contract and as long as the terms of the contract have been kept then the insurer can't subsequently wriggle out of the obligations they agreed to. Unless IVA was a specific requirement then not having gone through it can't then be used as a get-out clause for the insurance company. Stick it in there as a specific requirement and by all means you can then refuse to pay out if the owner of an incorrectly registered car tries to make a claim.

 

Until that happens then mis-information like this simply muddies the waters and gives people more wriggle room to either say they couldn't get a definite answer or to "interpret" the information that is out there in the way they feel like. DVLA are past masters at this and never seem to be able to give you a straight answer (or the same answer twice for that matter).

 

Iain

[Bungle]

just looked at my policy and this line is interesting

 

policy holder to make sure his or her vehicle is road legal and complies with any rules and regulations regarding its ability to be on the road.

 

 

that could be used to get out of a claim

[Archived2]

I don't agree that the IVA doesn't look at structural safety.
With a modified production vehicle or radically altered vehicle they do make informed decisions on safety of the body including seatbelt anchorages etc
 
They measure certain points of the body and the wheel plan and then the seating, these are entered into a computer and then the braking is scrutinised. the results are entered into a computer along with the weights.
This calculates the body lengths and structure along with passenger positions and weights, the wheel plan and centre balance along with gravity calculations taking point of engine crankshaft height and mixes it all up to give accepted numbers.
These are pretty strict and I have had to adhere to them with my builds.
They measure seat heights and seatbelt mounting areas to prescribed limits for the body. The ask for picture evidence if the structure surrounding these has been enclosed so that they can asses the safety.
 
This is just a scratch of the surface of what is checked. So with minis needing an IVA I again say that your statement isn't correct.
 
Now with a KIT-CAR where you have yourself built a chassis from tubular steel etc and you are applying for an amateur build status then the rules are very slightly different but the same measurements are taken etc. The VOSA TESTER can asses the welding while inspecting the car and flag up any issues and refuse a test pass on safety concerns.
A pragmatic approach is taken with each car.
 
No crash testing or scientific stress measurements are taken with an amateur build. If they asked for this then it would be then end for most of us and we have to thank people like ACE who have fought in our corner to allow our amateur building to continue.
 
The VOSA testers are highly trained and must have the ability to inspect the cars fully to make sure they are SAFE.
I had to get my rear brakes to perform better then they did out of the factory to meet the stringent requirements due to body changes.
 
The test is there to keep us safe. Making sure the car is correctly nailed together is part of this. 
 
There is still the onus on the builder to make sure the car is safe to use too. People ignoring this test and going ahead anyway are risking our freedoms to build cars like this at all.
Bungle is right to ask about the insurance issues surrounding these builds. and I agree with him.
 
Both me and Bungle have said about the implications of ignoring the IVA/BIBA for some time and have been ridiculed by nay sayers and people with sand around their neck.
 
Times have changed, go with it or lose the right to build your own car.
Kill someone in an illegal car and you deserve to face the consequences.
 
I cannot comment on scrutineering of 2000bhp cars but I am sure they do visually inspect frame/weld structure and safety. Do they crash test each car? doubtful.
 
The same principles probably do apply.

Edited by minihobbymini, 27 June 2014 - 01:50 PM.

[ibrooks]

Bungle is right to ask about the insurance issues surrounding these builds. and I agree with him.
 
Both me and Bungle have said about the implications of ignoring the IVA/BIBA for some time and have been ridiculed by nay sayers and people with sand around their neck.

 

I agree with both of you but the question asked was whether the insurance would cover a car that should have gone through IVA but hadn't.

 

Lhotte's answer was wrong in the vast majority of cases as they make no provision or check that the car has gone through IVA or whether it should have.

 

Insurers have a chance to help enforcing this stuff by making it a specific question or including clauses like the one Bungle says is on his documentation. I'm all for that and for them making it clearer to warn people.

 

Maybe when my renewals come around I'll see clauses like that from whoever I insure each of the cars with this time around but in my experience it's not been there so far.

 

Competition use vehicles generally have to have an approved safety cell so yes they've crash tested one. In some classes there is provision for you to have made the cage yourself but the rules you need to abide by make the structural check in IVA look like a quick glance.

 

Iain

[Lhotte]

No where did I say that scruniteering is similar to an IVA. What I was simply implying was that any driver should want to know that there vehicle would pass the necessary testing to ensure it is safe for the road.

 

Yes I know about this, thanks for insulting my intelligence.

 

We INSURE your car, we don't offer advise. Heck, we don't even ask if you car has a current MOT!

 

But if you are driving on the road, YOU as the driver are obliged to ensure that your car is road-use approved.

 

On a personal level, I'd rather not have my own premiums (or anyone's here) go up because of having to pay out for a claim due to failure to comply with UK traffic law.

 

Why is it the insurers responsibility to make sure you are compliant? You own/modify/drive a car, you should be the one making sure it is legal.