STOLEN BE WARNED ALL LANDY OWNERS SHOULD READ THIS.

[sighnbox]

Hi every one we all love our Land Rovers and love changing them and doing them up but a word of warning........Read on ALL LANDY OWNERS SHOULD READ THIS

I am insured with Adrian Flux I have a guaranteed value I phoned them to day for to find out if my new bike carrier was insure I was informed anything that IS NON FACTORY STANDARD is insured if the WHOLE Land Rover is stolen BUT NOT if it is stolen from the Landy...Of course I pointed out this is madness and my roof rack must be covered and they told me all modifications are covered.... THREE Hours later on the phone trying to put my case across and Adrian Flux talking to Equity Red Star the actual insurance company .......There NOT COVERD So roof racks are not covered , non factory fitted wheels and tyres including spare wheels , Snorkels , spot lights, bull bars, Tow hitches, steering tank and diff guards...Not covered

Anything that can be removed from the outside of the landy that is non factory standard is NOT covered for theft, All so If it did happen to fall off your landy and hit another car you are NOT covered for the damage it does....I di point out my policy wording is "Your verhicle's spare parts and fitted accessories are insured in the same way , (this includes makes tool kit and vehicles safty equipment). We only pride this cover if the spare parts and accessories are only used with your vehicle, are kept in or ON your vehicle" I did point out it says ON the Landy and does not say Factory fited accecessries or Manafactorors accessories.........It made no diffrance Equiy Red Star ...says NO

OK update to this the good lady at Arian Flux fought my case with Equity Red Star and now Equity red star have changed there minds and decided I am covered if some one steels roof rack etc ....Of course I have asked for conformation of this in writing.....so all is well but as a warning to other it may be worth checking ....The bike rack is still not coverd as its not a perminat fixed accessory but is coverd if it damages some one elses car.

[Tanuki]

That's SOP for all insurance policies: understandably they won't cover you for things they didn't know you had!

You should notify your insurer about even factory-fitted "options" if they're not part of the standard-build for your vehicle's particular model/year.

[sighnbox]

That's the point they did know I inform them of every thing 16.. A4 pages of modifications in small writing LOL even down to the fact the light lens fixings have been replaced with stainless ones.......Just so I'm totally covered and they cant turn around and say you never told us about...........I know this and what you say is right as my partner sorts out insurance claims gone wrong she is mainly employed by insurance companies to sort it all out but all so some policy holders. She has to be independent between the insurance company and the policy holder and be able to substantiate what she says when a settlement can not be found as it can go to court so she has to be able to back up what she says weather its in favour of the insurance company or as in a lot of the time in favour of the policy holder........So with her working one end of the office and me surfing Landy site's, EBay and porn the other end lol and hearing what she has to sort out I know you have to cross the T's and dot the I's and tell em every tinny detail

It was the fact that Red Star were saying that if any of this stuff (they knew about) was stolen off the Landy or it was damaged in a accident it was NOT covered ....Adrian Flux were good and the lady fought for me and once she was put thro to some one lot higher up at Equity Red Star they decided/agreed I was covered if my stuff was stolen off the Landy it did take THREE HOURS tho ....so basically I think It probably comes down to the fact it was prob some spotty 20 year old at Equity red star who didn't know his arse from his elbow telling Adrian Flux wrong info.

[De Ranged]

I don't have insurance, did the math yrs ago for the number of claims I'm better off.... I fix all of my mistakes, drive defensively, don't speed lol l sound like an old nana

[Bowie69]

Third party insurance is compulsory over here...

[Nigelw]

Which just means it is a licence to rob people, NZ has better idea on that front!

Compulsory here too, and they are happy to rob you equally.

[Retroanaconda]

The idea behind compulsory insurance is so that when someone runs up the back of you at the traffic lights the damage to your car/you is covered regardless of the financial solvency of the person who hit you, for example.

Anyone who's been hit by an uninsured driver would be able to explain what a pain that can cause I am sure.

[Bowie69]

Third party covers the person YOU hit, not the other way round. Until recently, if hit by an uninsured driver it was down to a civil proceeding to recoup the repair bill.

[Retroanaconda]

That's what I meant. When someone hits you and they have no money/assets, the fact that they have insurance means you still get your car fixed/repaired whatever.

[Nigelw]

I had two hits by uninsured drivers, both hit the 109 and both cars got written off seems NATO hitch on the back makes a lasting impression on an old Clio and the home made 4"x4"x1/4" home made H/D front bumper fended off an A-hole in an Escort just nicely, I thought the slight scuffing of the nr/side wing just added patina to my truck

Although in all seriousness there does need to be some sort of rule making/adjusting as far as insurance goes as I just can not for the life of me understand how anyone under the age of 21 can get insurance these days There was a kid next door to mum, 18yrs old with his first car a 1.2 1997 Fiesta no mods nothing just TPFT cover and they wanted £2,350, ok he lives on Leighpark but surely to god that is £2000 more than he paid for the car No wonder there are so many uninsured's out there, not trying to justify it at all!!!

[Snagger]

How about this as an idea: third part insurance through the DVLA, paid via fuel duty. That way, no-one would be uninsured. Fast or heavy vehicles have more momentum, so their increased fuel consumption offsets the higher costs of their accidents, and the greater one's annual mileage, the more risk you pose but the more fuel you're buying, so it's self levelling. The only trouble is that it wouldn't be adjustable for criteria such as age, driving history and so on, but if you had to swipe your driving licence and ANPR (to prevent the fraudulent use of others' licences) before the fuel duty was calculated, algorithms could be included so that low risk drivers paid less fuel duty per gallon than new or young drivers or those with significant claims histories. Additional levels of insurance like fire, theft or comprehensive would be through the existing separate system.

It's not perfect, but it's a system which should ensure every moving car is insured and should be feasible to make reliable and also economical, cutting down on false third party claims - I suspect fewer people would claim whiplash and such if they were claiming against a government agency rather than an insurance company, and the hoops to jump through are invariably more for a govt agency. Cutting down of the fraud should lower premiums, and the total duty should be demonstrated to run the system at cost, not for profit to subsidise other taxes.

[Nigelw]

How about this as an idea: third part insurance through the DVLA, paid via fuel duty. That way, no-one would be uninsured. Fast or heavy vehicles have more momentum, so their increased fuel consumption offsets the higher costs of their accidents, and the greater one's annual mileage, the more risk you pose but the more fuel you're buying, so it's self levelling. The only trouble is that it wouldn't be adjustable for criteria such as age, driving history and so on, but if you had to swipe your driving licence and ANPR (to prevent the fraudulent use of others' licences) before the fuel duty was calculated, algorithms could be included so that low risk drivers paid less fuel duty per gallon than new or young drivers or those with significant claims histories. Additional levels of insurance like fire, theft or comprehensive would be through the existing separate system.

It's not perfect, but it's a system which should ensure every moving car is insured and should be feasible to make reliable and also economical, cutting down on false third party claims - I suspect fewer people would claim whiplash and such if they were claiming against a government agency rather than an insurance company, and the hoops to jump through are invariably more for a govt agency. Cutting down of the fraud should lower premiums, and the total duty should be demonstrated to run the system at cost, not for profit to subsidise other taxes.

By far the most sensible suggestion I have ever heard involving insurance!!!! You should run for PM

Then again if there were serious penalties like having a limb cut off under the current system you can still bet your life earnings that some idiot would still drive without!!!

I do think third party only insurance should be cheaper as it only covers accidents, but I had some rather shocking quotes that were stupid in my view as it was a whole £35/pa more to insure fully comp, how can that be and I even had one quote that put TP more expensive than TPFT, again where is the logic there? If you are insured TP then there can only ever be claims for accidents, so why is it a similar price to TPFT and only marginally cheaper than fully comp?

[TheRecklessEngineer]

Never trust what they tell you on the phone. Read the documentation carefully.

I've had some ludicrous statements from insurance companies over the phone that don't stack up against what they say in small print.

[CwazyWabbit]

The recordings are to protect them........

[Mutz]

My Fully comp insurance was cheaper than getting third party fire and theft?

Don't know why it just was!!!

[Steve King]

My Fully comp insurance was cheaper than getting third party fire and theft?

Don't know why it just was!!!

People who just take TPF & T are rated a higher risk.

[De Ranged]

Don't worry even tho its not compulsory here (they have talked about it) we still have unrealistic insurance quotes.... I got a Lada Niva for my 16yr old son cost me $500 looking at prices of these in road legal trim, I figured $1000 value

So I got an insurance broker to get some quotes, insuring it just for him, full insurance was $1200 a year and the kicker $600 excess I dont think they were surprised when I said no

Oh I like the fuel tax thing.... good idea apart from one major issue it would be managed as a tax, that means it will go where the govt of the time want to spend it not for what is intended, the New Zealand AA has been pushing for yrs that the fuel tax that was put there for the maintenance of the road be spent on just that lol

[Nigelw]

People who just take TPF & T are rated a higher risk.

This I don't understand? How can they be any higher risk than any other road user? I thought it would bear down to the potential payout from a claim, where by a TP cover would be accident damage only, TPFT would cover accidents, theft and fire damage where as fully comprehensive covers just about everything with inclusions for cargo and often towed trailers and their cargo, so I would have thought it went on the potential payouts and the risk was associated with the driver only for TP and the location/security implementation for the rest, or am I missing something?

I would hardly want to insure a 1.1 mk2 Fiesta fully comp at a higher premium due to it being regarded as an easy target for theft, so would only want TP cover when I drive it therefore meaning any potential risk is based on my driving and not my post code.

Not sure I get how it is supposed to work this insurance system, anyone care to elaborate for this old fashioned thinking farmer

[Bowie69]

Basically, they asses you, if you ask for TPFT cover they think you are more of a risk because :

a) You can't afford proper insurance, therefore seem like a scrote

b) Clearly your vehicle isn't worth much so you won't care how you drive it and therefore more likely to have an accident.

When I started driving it was cheaper to have TPO or TPFT, but not any more... thanks to personal injury and other parties getting in on the act of claiming against your insurance, like the fire service for cleaning up the road.

Gotta remember the insurance companies do know what they are doing unfortunately, which means if you appear higher risk according to their experience they will put the premium up.

[Steve King]

Basically, they asses you, if you ask for TPFT cover they think you are more of a risk because :

a) You can't afford proper insurance, therefore seem like a scrote

b) Clearly your vehicle isn't worth much so you won't care how you drive it and therefore more likely to have an accident.

When I started driving it was cheaper to have TPO or TPFT, but not any more... thanks to personal injury and other parties getting in on the act of claiming against your insurance, like the fire service for cleaning up the road.

Gotta remember the insurance companies do know what they are doing unfortunately, which means if you appear higher risk according to their experience they will put the premium up.

. Exactly - this is what insurers term "moral hazard" and simply means your lifestyle/attitude may make you more of a risk than the guy who takes fully comp.