Bull bar and lights

[jeremy996]

The 2007 date was when bars and vehicle had to be tested in UK/Europe as an assembly. Before that date there is no systematic data, so there is not a basis for a claim of more harm from a non-compliant bar. After that date there is a tested norm, so the basis for a litigation claim.

I suppose if the injured party had unlimited funds and a desire to really bury the other party, they could pay for the testing to establish norms at an earlier date, but it is really unlikely. UK legislation is generally not retrospective, so before 2007, the law did not care and post 2007 a modern vehicle is expected to have a modern bar.

There is a reason insurance companies are heavily legislated and regulated; greed and self-interest means they will try to avoid expensive claims, so if the insured has been less than candid or just unlucky, the insurer will start by denying the claim on the grounds of non-disclosure, miss-statement or deliberate concealment. When you enter into an insurance contract on a motor vehicle, you are declaring that it is "roadworthy", so making it harder than originally designed or adding sharp edges makes it less compliant. If you have a post 2007 vehicle and you say you have put a bull bar on the front, the insurer will assume that it is a compliant "Frontal Protection System", unless flagged otherwise. If you flag it, the sensible underwriter will decline the risk. 

You may not think this is fair, and you would probably be right, no one is likely to have all of the relevant regulations to hand, so the government has set up the ombudsman process. The insurance ombudsman does have teeth and can force a settlement but it will be slow, stressful and not always good news to the insured. Any insurance company plucking disclosure objections from the ether would have to demonstrate that it is relevant and reasonable to the claim being decided - not asking the right questions is not the insured's problem but lying to your insurance company is usually fatal to any claims.