A cyclist says he was denied a car insurance claim by an insurance company on the grounds of him fitting a removable towbar to the rear of the vehicle for a bike carrier, leaving him with a bill potentially going up to £100,000 along with “stress and anxiety”.
Stewart Crooks told road.cc that he had purchased the Allianz-owned Flow insurance policy via the MoneySuperMarket website. However, when he tried to file a claim after an incident in February this year, he was accused of trying to “deceive” the company for failing to list a towbar as a modification.
“I am at my wit’s end in a nine-month dispute with my car insurance company,” Crooks said. “Following a routine vehicle collision, they have refused to honour my insurance at the last minute leaving me with a potential six-figure cost and the incredible stress and anxiety this has caused me and my family.”
He said that when he was applying for a quote, he selected ‘unmodified’, having clicked on the website’s ‘help’ link to determine what the question meant.
MoneySuperMarket states that a modification means a “change from the manufacturer’s original specification, such as alloy wheels, air-conditioning, bodywork, exhaust system or tinted windows”. However, it doesn’t mention whether a towbar is a relevant modification to a car’s original specification from an insurance perspective.
Crooks explained why he selected ‘No’ in the modifications section when filing the claim, saying: “Our previous insurer did not care when I called them to advise them we were fitting a towbar. In the modifications section of the purchase journey on MoneySuperMarket when asked if the car has been modified if you click on the ‘Help/What does this mean’ section it lists alloy wheels, air conditioning, bodywork, exhaust system, suspension or tinted windows. This is why we selected no.”
He added: “What we now realise is that if we had selected yes, we would then have been presented a long list of options in which towbar is one. Given that my previous insurer had stated that the towbar did not affect the insurance and the guidance from the help button on MoneySuperMarket I had no reason to click yes instead of no.
“Similarly, as far as I can see, Flow asks for performance and cosmetic changes to be declared but nothing explicit about needing to declare a towbar. At no point was I asked directly if the car had a towbar.”
> Insurance firm to offer cyclists cheaper car insurance – because they’re better drivers
After acknowledging that he had not intentionally misled them, Flow then claimed that it does not insure cars with towbars. “I challenged this as I could not find anything on the website or documents to validate this. Instead, I found a number of articles advising how to tow safely,” he continued.
“At this point, a number of friends of mine with towbars contacted their insurance companies to make sure they would not fall foul. All were told that this did not affect their policy. In fact, two were told that a towbar makes the car safer, and one was given a small reimbursement.”
Crooks mentioned that the towbar wasn’t even on the car as it was detachable, nor was the rear area of the car involved in the incident. However, the insurer dug in, saying that the towbar was not original and hence the policy would be void.
He said that after the lengthy dispute with Allianz/Flow, he contacted the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), with an investigator agreeing that the company was treating them unfairly and recommending to the Ombudsman that Crooks’ insurance should be honoured and compensated.
However, matters were made worse after the FOS decision ruled in favour of the insurance company. The Ombudsman cited the Consumer Insurance Disclosure and Representations Act on ‘misrepresentation’, which applies when information provided by the consumer to the insurer is incomplete or misleading, be it “carelessly, deliberately or recklessly”.
Crooks added: “I challenged his [the Ombudsman’] decision asking how he could have the opposite opinion to his colleagues, a selection of insurance experts and a number of lawyers, whilst reiterating that I have zero proof that Flow would not have insured us. In fact, I have the opposite with a number of examples of Flow advising how to tow safely. However, his final response did not address any of my points and instead just reiterated the decision.
“The fact that the Ombudsman has taken a polarising stance to everyone else and has not provided a single piece of evidence to justify so reeks of inappropriate behaviour somewhere in the relationship between the Ombudsman and Allianz-Flow.”
“The consequences of this decision are catastrophic. Aside from being without the car since February, the concern and stress of arguing this coupled with the colossal consequences have caused severe anxiety and depression (requiring medication) and other health implications let alone weeks of sleepless nights.
“The impact of this decision will leave us in monumental financial debt and heavily limited ability to procure future insurance if we are ever able to afford another car.”
> Whispbar WBT31 3 bike tow bar carrier
An Allianz spokesperson told road.cc: “We understand the distress caused by this accident. Making modifications to your vehicle can have serious implications for your car insurance policy if they are not declared, and can lead to a policy being invalidated.
“The policy chosen did not allow modifications and had we been informed that a towbar had been fitted we would not have provided insurance. The Financial Ombudsman Service has reviewed this case and its decision, which is binding, has found that the outcome we reached in this case was fair and reasonable.”
A spokesperson for MoneySuperMarket said: “We advise that if you make any modifications to your vehicle – or you purchase one that has been customised from the factory model – you should let your insurance provider know as it could impact your premium or invalidate your insurance.”
82 thoughts on “Cyclist denied car insurance claim for fitting bike carrier with removable towbar”
If they can get out of paying
If they can get out of paying…they will. Insurance is a gamble, until the banker loses… when it becomes a scam.
So they’ll at least refund
So they’ll at least refund all their premiums, right? As they were never insuring them.
Usually if there is thought
Usually if there is thought to be fraud or deception involved, which aiaics is what is being asserted, then premiums would not be refunded.
That’s in my Allianz policy, and Allianz own Flow Insurance (may have been a rebrand, though).
mattw wrote:
Was originally asserted, but has since been walked back:
Your insurance company is
Your insurance company is housed in a mirror glass skyscraper with their name on top. You don’t get to skyscraper ownership by giving money away.
Parasites on the backside of
Parasites on the backside of society.
“Man misunderstands insurance
“Man misunderstands insurance questions”. Sorry, but I don’t think there’s anything to see here…
I was tempted to post a
I was tempted to post a similar thing that it isn’t really cycling-related, but obviously cyclists have towbars too on their cars upon which they pay “road tax” – actually vehicle excise duty.
This article is really just a public information service. The moral of the story being:
If you have a towbar fitted to your vehicle, make sure you have declared it to your insurer or else you might find that you aren’t actually insured.
Insurance company uses
Insurance company uses opacity to forge a deceitful contract.
FTFY
It’s very cycling related, in
It’s very cycling related, in that towbar mounted cycle carriers are common.
And the status of a detachable towbar is relevant.
My question is whether a Bike-Bones rack, which relies on the closing of a rear hatch to hold it, would count as a modification.
I think probably not, as nothing is bolted in.
100% right. Just the usual
100% right. Just the usual mob here, trying to make a big deal out of something innocuous.
I am not at all suprised the
I am not at all suprised the insurance company tried to not pay. That’s basically what they do, take your money and try anything possible to not give any back. I am suprised the ombudsman didn’t take the circumstances in to account though!
I’m surprised by the
I’m surprised by the Ombudsman’s (Ombudsperson’s) ruling. I thought there was a general requirement for not surprising customers with hidden clauses and that the insurance sold is “fit for purpose” as the customer understands it. That shouldn’t cover unreasonable customer expectations, but it sounds very reasonable to me that a removable towbar shouldn’t count as a vehicle modification and that’s borne out by the other insurance companies.
If a company is going to be taking an unusual stance on towbars, then they should make it clear and upfront so that the customer is aware of it. The lack of information on their website should count against them in my opinion.
In this instance we have a customer that paid for an insurance policy and had the reasonable expectation that it would provide cover for a typical RTC. Sounds to me like the policy was mis-sold and the FOS shouldn’t have ruled the way they did.
I think there’s stuff around
I think there’s stuff around approved towbars for vehicles, and approved uses.
I’m still ICE, not electric, as I could not find an Electric Car capable of towing a decent weight, apart from a £100k or so wanker-tanker-Tesla.
Even though such towing is authorised in other countries.
Add in the “utmost good faith” nature of insurance contracts, and I can see why he’s on a sticky wicket.
I think not clicking on a link to explore options is a bit weak as a “but it was hidden away” argument.
mattw wrote:
I thought electric cars had more torque than equivalent ICE vehicles, so I’m surprised that they can’t tow well.
It’s actually even worse – if
It’s actually even worse – if you are looking to fit a tow bar to an EV check very carefully. previous kia niro shape for instance has a 0Kg tow rating – u can fit a towbar potentially if it’s only for fitting a bike carrier but still have to check that. the same model ICE and phev though have a towbar rating and the kia soul has a 750kg towbar rating and it’s the same platform vehicle just a different body shell on top. – To me though this story smells of allianz trying to wiggle out of the claim on the flimsiest excuse. Spurned by this rechecked all the quotes for cars I’m looking at and a tow bar notification did not alter any of the quotes or increase the premium (example quote 297 for a 22 plate mazda cx-30 with a skyactive x engine) made no difference with or without. I was looking at a vw golf SV and nearly bought it but realised after the drive that it didn’t have carplay… vendor is like well u could change the radio.. I’m like a) you’d void the 2 year warranty on the car on this most likely b) insurance would increase quite possibly..
unami wrote:
A 0Kg tow rating? I could tow more than that on my bike. I bet they borrowed Shimano’s crank technology to make that chassis.
It’s weird for sure –
It’s weird for sure – apparently kia didn’t put the vehicle class through certification procedure for whatever reason and ended up with 0Kg.. it normally means u can have nose weight without a load – so a cycle carrier with 3 bikes etc is fine – depending on the towbar and method of attachment can deal with 75 or 100kg total down force weight. the 0kg just means u can’t pull any weight with wheels…
Its not that wierd a lot of
Its not that wierd a lot of companies charge £££ for a tow bar – the fitting is usually trivial but nowadays the charge is for updating the VED to include a towing weight (which is defaulted to 0kg) AND to switch on the already existing tow bar software.
Pure money spinner.
For example Tesla charge £1000 for this. But its not just EV’s afaik.
thing is ICE and PHEV have
thing is ICE and PHEV have full rating – and the later model ev also does and it’s prominently in the brochure now. afaik getting type rating revised for one car is prohibitively expensive – as in just buy another car with approved type rating than trying to uprate a 0kg tow bar but never tried it myself. Most teslas seem to have appropriate tow bar ratings from what I’ve seen – the 1000 pound charge would be just the towbar install and software activation. Even on my 14 year old skoda it’s now 5-600 pounds or so though for some reason can’t find anywhere that will install on this model for some reason, possibly because even that has stability sw activation requirement (for ESP/Traction control) by skoda so perhaps skoda only can install?
The new Renault 5E has a
The new Renault 5E has a declared tow limit of 500kg, though it would completely wreck the range expectation.
mattw wrote:
My Ioniq 5 is rated for towing to 1600kg braked, 750kg unbraked, similar to many ICE cars. I don’t have a towbar though so can’t testify to its real life ability. I would imagine range would be affected much like an ICE car.
This now has me questioning
This now has me questioning whether my roof-mounted bike racks count as a modification. I had always assumed it only applied to barking exhausts, lowered suspension, fluttering eyelashes on headlights – that sort of thing!
My experience is that Direct
My experience is that Direct Line and Hastings both consider roof bars to be declarable modifications, but not the bike rack itself if it can be easily removed. Hastings also claimed that if I remove the roof bars when not in use I would have to call them again to remove the modification (each time incurring a fee to change the policy!). Declaring the roof bars made the insurance cheaper. I just leave the roof bars on the car to avoid any issues with insurance.
A towbar changes the use of
A towbar changes the use of and thf the risk related to the vehicle so I would have thought it was necessary to declare it – perhaps the insurer should make that kind of modification included in the early FAQ info.
james-o wrote:
That might have some bearing if the OP was claiming for something in any way, however tangentially, related to the tow bar. But the tow bar is completely irrelevant. This sort of thing should be a slam-dunk under unfair contract terms. But the FCA is complicit.
The problem for the guy here
The problem for the guy here is, it depends if you’re looking at it from a mechanics logic or an insurance small print POV. I can see both sides but really, a towbar probably changes use in some ways like alloy wheels upgrades do and it’s all linked to proabilities.
No. Having the apparatus for
No. Having the apparatus for a removable towbar fitted, without even the tow hitch itself being fitted, in no way affects the probabilities of having an RTC. What is this other side that you can see?
I imagine the alloy wheels
I imagine the alloy wheels thing is a relic of the days when only more prestige cars were fitted with them and cars with them were regularly found in the morning on bricks with them no longer. Now that the vast majority of cars come with alloy wheels it is much less of a risk. I would see it reasonable for an insurance company to penalise a claimant or deny cover completely if the modification was a cause of additional loss or a materially affected the risk in a substantive fashion, but this looks like evasion of responsibility by the insurance company, but there may be other confounding factors we are unaware of, maybe an exaggeration of the claim which soured any reasonable expectation of good will from the insurers.
Doesn’t matter if the claim
Doesn’t matter if the claim relates to the towbar, the insurer has given a policy based on the disclosed facts and risk profile. Similarly, if you have contents worth 50k but decide to insure 20k and “self insure” the rest, insurer can theoretically refuse a claim even for the 20k because you misrepresented the risk. Racket!
I sympathise, but cheap
I sympathise, but cheap insurance can have a hidden price….
Easy to say in hindsight, but always read the small print. I changed house insurance once because when I read the terms in detail, I discovered I’d agreed to keep the house above 15 Celcius at all times. There are parts of my house that don’t go that warm with the heating on! An easy get out for the insurance company on a water pipe burst that one…
danhopgood wrote:
I doubt expensive insurance is a guarantee of no gotchas.
danhopgood wrote:
A marginally cheaper alternative could be to leave the cold taps running slightly all the time.
And/or install some pipe lagging. The spiral wrap from Screwfix (other retailers are available) does a really good job and can fit in very small spaces and notches.
And/or get some smart TRVs.
Other advice is available.
How does your “advice” change
How does your “advice” change the fact that the insurance company stands not to pay out?
danhopgood wrote:
Yes, but even so, this case is like your home insurers refusing to pay out for a lightning strike – because you’d let the indoor thermometer slip below 15 degrees.
This requires more context,
This requires more context, really.
Maintaining a constant temprature is generally stipulated on Unoccupied property cover, or if the main, full time residential dwelling is to be left unoccupued for any length of time, and the temperature is to be maintained often between Oct-April to try and avoid the bursting of frozen pipes.
A lightning strike is not related in any way to the temperature of the property so an insurer wouldn’t stand a chance if they repudiated a loss based upon this and got taken to the Ombudsman!
Kind Regards, former broker & now underwriter for property risks.
Yes, exactly – and thank you
Yes, exactly – and thank you for making the case for me. Now go back and read what I said, and you’ll find we are in agreement.
How many loop-holes can you
How many loop-holes can you fit in a single policy? If it is worded vaguely enough and ambiguously written in “lawyer-eze”, as many as you need!
Geoff H wrote:
In theory, the FCA should not allow that kind of obfuscation to fly. There’s a requirement for policies to use clear language and to be easy to understand as otherwise there’s a clear argument that the policy was mis-sold as it doesn’t cover what the customer expected it to cover.
What, this FCA?
What, this FCA:
That’s an uncanny foretelling of the OP’s account.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/26/fca-mps-peers-financial-conduct-authority-appg-report
Sriracha wrote:
Yeah, I did write “in theory” as they are seen as toothless. I didn’t realise that they’re as bad as that report says though. (I work in insurance, but my job’s just wrangling computers rather than actually dealing with the FCA though I’ve had basic training in their general principles in treating customers fairly etc).
I can’t believe they do not
I can’t believe they do not insure cars with towbars! What if it’s a manufacturer option? Sounds like total rubbish to me.
If it is a manufacturer
If it is a manufacturer option that surely can’t be described as a modification of the product post sales…unless it is a dealer fit thing of a 3rd party product, then who knows.
Quite – it makes no sense. If
Quite – it makes no sense. If Allianz don’t insure cars with towbars they would have to make that clear up front, since towbars are often manufacturer original fitment. Given that it appears they don’t make that exclusion, they would have to explain how the risk is materially different for properly fitted towbars that are not original equipment in order to justify their otherwise contradictory stance.
It seems abundantly clear they are just shysters looking for gotchas. They deserve all the bad publicity they get.
The guy says the towbar wasn
The guy says the towbar wasn’t fitted at the time and the rear wasn’t involved in the accident ,how did the insurance know ? And he claims 100k in debt which is almost impossible as he calls it an Innocuous accident
Jaijai wrote:
He actually called it
which is not a phrase that ought to exist.
In fairness, though, my reading of it is the six-figure sum he’s quoting is not just the repair cost, but everything associated with the incident, including medical bills, possibly legal fees, etc.
Jaijai wrote:
Because a removable towbar needs to have a bracket installed under the car to attach the towbar to, along with associated wiring to plug trailer lights into. You can’t just clip a removable towbar onto an unmodified car.
You’re not answering my
You’re not answering my question ,here’s me thinking you just hold it next to the car and it magically sticks to it .
Jaijai wrote:
Sorry, I thought I’d spelled it out in simple terms. Do you really thinks an insurance company would settle a 6 figure sum without inspecting the vehicles, or that the insurance company inspector is so incompetent as to not notice the non-standard bracket under the back of the car while he is looking for the go-faster exhaust?
Using the flawed logic of
Using the flawed logic of “Flow” – using non OEM parts on your vehicle would constitute a “modification?”
Maybe other insurance companies are missing out here, they could be refusing to pay thousands of claims for “modifications?”
Sorry Sir/Madam/Other….. (or similar)
Upon inspection, it appears your vehicle was modified with an unbranded air filter / windscreen wiper; air freshener dangly thingy; therefore, your claim has been declined.
Kind regards (etc)
[Insert name of money grabbing blood sucking insurance company here]
Same for “car poppies” and other badges/stickers…?
Just thinking, what about those waste of money 3D number plates and dust cap tyre pressure monitors?
Allianz is yet another shady
Allianz is yet another shady “insurer” that weasels out of valid claims upon any technicality? Noted.
£100,000?!
£100,000?!
Did he write of a new Range Rover?
Depends if a third party or
Depends if a third party or even multiple ones are involved.
Benthic wrote:
There could be personal injury claims included in that sum.
That’s insurance companies
That’s insurance companies for you, bunch of shysters.
Time past a modification meant something that increased perfomance or materially affected the the value of the car, not a towbar or air con.
Bicycle insurance polices are among the worst.
bikeman01 wrote:
Not true … my parents were big on caravans when I was a kid (1970s-1980s) and always paid extra on their insurance for having a tow bar fitted. As he took great “pleasure” telling me in detail when I asked his advice when considering fitting one for a bike rack.
Just checked my policy with
Just checked my policy with flow. Specifically says towbar are not a alteration that needs to be advised. See my photo with screenshot!
Twallis wrote:
Unfortunately, profile pictures here have all the detail squeezed out of them by running over them repeatedly with a BMW. You can upload an image in a comment, though.
That doesn’t say that all of
That doesn’t say that all of the covered modifications don’t need to be declared first though – it just says that Flow will insure vehicles with those modifications but definitely won’t for the rest.
Yepp, big difference…and
Yepp, big difference…and the price will reflect the additional risk posed.
open_roads wrote:
Indeed, which gives the lie to their statement to the OP: “Flow then claimed that it does not insure cars with towbars.”
Sriracha wrote:
The quote from Flow in the article actually states …
[i]“The policy chosen did not allow modifications …”[/i] (my bolding)
… which suggests they offer multiple policies, not all of which cover modifications. I imagine offering a policy that doesn’t cover any modifications allows them to make rates a lot cheaper and therefore more attractive looking on comparison sites, while the policy(ies) that do cover them appear further down the ranking.
That is the quote from
That is the quote from Allianz, yes. But the article also says (reporting the (un)insured): “After acknowledging that he had not intentionally misled them, Flow then claimed that it does not insure cars with towbars.”
Many of the car insurance
Many of the car insurance proposals I’ve filled in over the years have had the direct question; ‘Is you car fitted with a tow bar?” The very simple reason being that towing increases your baking distance and should something happen in front of you you’re more likely to be involved than if you weren’t towing, hence your a higher risk. It doesn’t matter whether you use the towbar for bike carrier or towing 3,500kg trailer, the point is you could tow that heavy trailer with needing to tell them.
The second point is these price comparison websites, they are exctly that. Get a price, but you then follow a link to the insurance broker / companies own website. Now here comes the problem, you cannot gurantee those comparison website and the brokers website have identical questions or answers or even the information transfered over was sdone accurately. I’ve certainly found errors when I’ve followed links. It’s up to you to double check everything, towbar modifications and all.
Capt Sisko wrote:
Very topical. Is this coded advice to Gregg Wallace?
Capt Sisko wrote:
That’s OK – you just need one of these.
Is there any suggestion from
Is there any suggestion from Allianz that the tow bar was a factor in the accident, or is this simply a case of them weaseling out of paying on spurious grounds? My sense is that it’s the latter, in spades, and I will take note when choosing insurance. An insurer that does not pay is worthless.
Sriracha wrote:
Sadly, it doesn’t matter. All insurance companies work on the principle of “utmost good faith”, which means that it places the onus on the purchaser to disclose all information and, if they don’t, they reserve the right to simply invalidate or void the policy.
Buying through a comparison website only makes it more important that details of such things are checked thoroughly with the company directly before entering into the contract.
The insurers response implies that they offer multiple different policies, and the one selected by the customer does not allow for any modifications to the vehicle … ergo it is probably cheaper and therefore features higher up the rankings on the comparison site, whereas an alternate policy from the same company would have covered them but would be more expensive and further down the list.
None of this is to take sides here … it is the voice of frustration from 26 years working in the industry, and one of the reasons I generally don’t use comparison websites.
Also one of the many reasons I got out of the industry.
Hi the ombudsman has a direct
Hi the ombudsman has a direct route for MPs to raise concerns. I suggest you contact your MP. The FOS is established by Parliament and governance involves the FCA….which has recently been described as being wholly incompetent. I cannot see how there cannot therefore also be similar concerns over the FOS. The contact details for your MP are here https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/who-we-are/work-other-organisations
As with many things, this was
As with many things, this was forseen by Monty Python.
https://youtu.be/kO2R_DDZPCM?si=zVJcKZw1-xSC8Q2G&t=40
Edit: very slightly NSFW.
Or from another of their
Or from another of their works: “if you are not completely satisfied with this product, you’ve been had”.
Definitely disappointing to
Definitely disappointing to see this decision from both the insurer and FOS. Particularly as fitment of a towbar is likely to disproportionately affect those the insurance industry is supposed to view as vulnerable customers, who will not find the wording used clear in the slightest.
While an insurer has a duty to combat claims fraud, it seems common sense has gone missing here is people inside the industry can’t decide if the wording is clear, then what hope has it of being clear to those outside of it.
All that said also disappointing to see it not mentioned in the article that third-party costs were covered by the insurer – a fact that was mentioned in an AutoExpress article published 2 days prior to this article. Which according to the FOS ruling it did not have to do – albeit this usually involves the insurer initially having to front the cost then suing the customer to recover the costs which most insurers don’t like to do.
I agree on this. I checked
I agree on this. I checked for an insurance quote on Confused.com yesterday and noticed it states “towbars do not need to be declared as a modification”.
But it also said words to the effect of “check the Ts and Cs of the final insurance documents as the insurer may require it to be declared even if we don’t”.
Clear as mud.
open_roads wrote:
That’s definitely not clear messaging and is a bit weaselly by Confused.com – they should have verified that none of their insurance partners require towbar declarations before putting such a statement on their website. I would hope that it’s just them being extra cautious, but it’s hardly fair to customers to clearly state something and then push responsibility onto the customer if the statement isn’t true.
Ultimately though, people need to be careful when going through marketplaces such as Confused.com as you may think that you’re their customer, but you need to verify exactly who you’re paying the money to as that is who you’re entering into a contract with. If Confused.com put misleading info on their website, but you don’t actually pay them, then they have little responsibility to you as you’re not their customer. (I don’t know if you pay Confused.com or their partners directly)
It’s very clear – Confused
It’s very clear – Confused tells customers to check the terms with the insurance provider. This is the case with all insurance policies you buy from aggregation services like Confused, GoCompare, etc, whether home, vehicle, travel, health, and so on.
To include all policy variations on a generic quote service would render the service impossible to use.
Hywel wrote:
However, Confused have chosen to put information on their website that doesn’t appear to be correct. That’s clearly their mistake. They could simply have amended it to say “Towbars aren’t commonly treated as modifications, but please check the policy for details”.
kt26 wrote:
Interesting if 3rd party costs have been covered – how can the claimants be out of pocket to the tune of £100k as they claim?
Something fishy going on – could they be exaggerating to put pressure on the Insurance Co?
I’m sorry to read about this.
I’m sorry to read about this. It is shocking but that fact that the FOS has upheld the insurer’s decision is absurd.
I recommend you contact the following:
BBC radio 4 you and yours
BBC watdog
BBC MONEY BOX
The insurance trade body. They will sign up to a code of conduct around transparency and clarity and if this is being so inconsistent between insurers it is something that they need to address and make clearer for customers.
Don’t give up the fight.
Insurers doing anything to
Insurers doing anything to avoid paying out shocker. ‘Twas ever thus. My car came with “towbar preparation”. But I have no doubt that slotting the actual hitch into the socket would be a “modification”.
My experience exactly, you
My experience exactly, you cannot trust insurance companies or any of the ombudsmen.
What an excellent article,
What an excellent article, thank you road.cc. I am insured with the RAC and checked with them online to confirm I had a bike-rack towbar fitted which I had not realised counted as a modification. In this case it was a straightforward £13 extra to update my policy plus £25 fee for admin. I guess the story might have been very different – no doubt similar to the poor cyclist involved here – had I needed to make a claim before reading the article tho’? Good Luck to him/her by the way in getting the insurers and Ombudsman to use common decency and settle this claim.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/exclusive/365458/driver-whose-towbar-voided-his-insurance-wins-payout
Same person – happy ending it seems – Lesson learned hit the media hard!
Also Check for mods – I went through to see what mods would affect price – towbar didn’t seem to affect anything so even less reason to not payout.