- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Whispbar WBT31 3 bike tow bar carrier07.jpgCyclist denied car insurance claim for fitting bike carrier with removable towbar
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.”
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after completing his masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Cymru, and also likes to write about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 52 min 15 sec ago
Except for the 12th and 13th pictures, which are not only of the rear dropout but also include the "raw" 3D printed version as well.
- Rendel Harris 57 min 5 sec ago
Sorry to hear that, will keep an eye out. You can post pictures in the comments using the "Image" "Choose file" "Upload" then "Save" buttons. You...
- Rendel Harris 59 min 27 sec ago
Channel4.com has every episode of every series available to watch on demand free; here's a link to the pilot:...
- Jbnuts 2 hours 17 min ago
I hear what you are saying, but I wouldn't lump all the Chinese manufacturers into a single category. Winspace for example develop frames that I'm...
- hapaxlegomenon 5 hours 24 min ago
LEGEND
- Hypnoswan 6 hours 33 min ago
I am surprised You didn't comment on the different length of the hems between the watershed fabric and the internal fleece as it's a good couple of...
- eburtthebike 7 hours 40 min ago
No. The BBC has been anti-cyclist for at least forty years. Like you, I'm puzzled, but I've been puzzled for forty years and nothing seems to...
- Secret_squirrel 8 hours 45 min ago
pretty sure Force had fairly significant hood changes in D2.
- Zjtm231 9 hours 6 min ago
Would love to hear what Briggs has to say about this. Yup won't hold my breath
Add new comment
82 comments
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 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.
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 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..
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 - 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 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 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 declared tow limit of 500kg, though it would completely wreck the range expectation.
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.
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!
"Man misunderstands insurance questions". Sorry, but I don't think there's anything to see here…
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 opacity to forge a deceitful contract.
FTFY
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 mob here, trying to make a big deal out of something innocuous.
Parasites on the backside of society.
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.
So they'll at least refund all their premiums, right? As they were never insuring them.
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).
Was originally asserted, but has since been walked back:
If they can get out of paying...they will. Insurance is a gamble, until the banker loses... when it becomes a scam.
Pages