Ninja, on the contrary, I have a very good relationship with my insures and are on first name terms with them. I don’t advise at all withholding important and relevant facts at all from your insurer.
What I do however have an issue with is the constant repetition if “facts” on the internet that lack common-sense or the belief that 30 seconds on Google will give you the answer to anything.
Most people search out the cheapest insurance possible and attempt to bypass any broker with knowledge in the process to get to the cheapest point. My good friend Richard Egger said to me some years ago, when people do not understand a product they default to price. It is very true.
If you buy your insurance off the internet it will be designed to minimise admin cost and bypass involving expensive contact with underwriters. It is automated to produce an acceptable risk for a general product. That generalisation will include “standard.” By standard I mean parts that OEM or replicate OEM within generally accepted limits which no insurance assessor is going to get upset by. I will include in that our example of brake pads and wheels. Within that bubble of standard will be brake pads and wheels expected to fit the car that maintain standard performance, again within the limits of what cars of that type were supplied with.
If you phone your off the shelf internet insurance company and make a real human being answer the phone, which costs money, and ask then to open up their nice pre-packaged insurance offering by asking them consider something that you are telling them is a modification, you are going to get an additional charge. You have to structure what you are saying to ensure you convey that there is no risk change. (Because there is none). But back to the brake pads. Insurance companies do not, for standard policies, expect or require you to inform them every time you have your car serviced and come component might be changed because the risk allows for this which is the same if you go from one standard Mazda wheel which could could well have been fitted from new anyway. When you insure your car, you do not tell your insurance company the specification of all the parts fitted and if you change your wheels or other part (brake pads) to a different part that could well have legitimately been fitted to that car when you insured it without changing the risk, all well and good.
Yo cannot cherry pick issues, changing tyres is OK, but changing wheels because tyres are unknown is not, or none OEM wheels are fine because they have winter tyres which are allowed is OK.
A modification will not always itself have a cost attached to it - that is based on the risk profile involved. Furthermore, you do not state what you are changing to say there is no risk change - you might as well be saying add a turbo and the risk profile has not changed! You are completely contradicting yourself from your first line.
“With hold important or relevant facts”…try singing that again with the words “could” have been fitted, or unlikely to have been fitted at factory or an option from factory…or furthermore knowingly changed without disclosing.
Finally, if you know your insurers/brokers that well you would bloody well know what many insurers (depending on insurer) constitute as a modification, and the variances within that - heck you have UKI Limited taking factory fitted options into account as a modification, so I do wonder how many have not disclosed that to UKI. Insurance works on utmost good faith so just because one insurer may not class the wheel change or change of anything as a modification another dam well could, a 2 minute phone call saves so much hassle for any individual - furthermore they are complying with their duty of acting in the utmost good faith. Whether the insurer decides no problem or yes it is is irrelevant - non disclosure could just land you in a world of ■■■■ which is avoidable so no “not all well and good”, if it “could” have been factory fitted or variation from standard specification of that model and trim level.
Again hence the reference to “standard” standard being as OEM or OEM equivalent. Brake pads easy you swap from OEM to OEM or equivalent no problem, upgrade it and many will have a problem.
I am not cherry picking issues at all Winter tyres has become a very very specific area that industry got forced into by the ABI to not consider as modification - hence the winter tyre commitment that gets renewed every year.
But, like anything you do not like my information even though it came directly from a number of insurers own policy documents, my own personal experience, a number of other legal sources and contract law background…yeah 30 seconds on google, not.
Anyhow I glad it is up to any individual what they disclose and whether they choose to comply fully with acting utmost good faith. But it appears your viewpoint of acting in “utmost good faith” is substantially different from others and failing to see the light of what some insurers will consider a “modification”.
With this statement Again hence the reference to “standard” standard being as OEM or OEM equivalent. Brake pads easy you swap from OEM to OEM or equivalent no problem, upgrade it and many will have a problem. you are attempting to use common sense to determine what is a modification or modification of risk, however with your mantra of “With hold important or relevant facts” then it is not for you at all to decide what is a modification of risk but your insurance company.
If you book your car into Garage Co and they swap brake pads how do you know performance or lack of them. How is it determined if that make or part number constitutes an variance or not? It, therefore, is not for you to decide. I strongly doubt your insurance company, or at least the person you would speak to will have to hand an exhaustive list of pad manufactures, compounds, specifications to make a decision on. However, it is still not for you to take that decision from them unless you think common sense applies. Equally if you buy a replacement part from eBay, lets say these cheap callipers that are falling to bits. Your insurance company may well have had several instances where claims have been made that can be attributed to a certain make or brand of component. Would you declare to your insurance company that Garage Co had just fitted a replacement calliper to your car and it had the following manufactures reference on, or that you had bought a calliper off eBay and had Garage Co fit it?
To your point you should, because it is not for you to decide what constitutes important or relevant facts.
I do however agree it is for the individual to declare what they feel is important or relevant to their insurer, just do we have to wheel out “you must tell your insurance company” every time someone asks a question?
Nick I think you will find you started the brake pad question and started cherry picking on specific components.
Furthermore, any insurer works on that basis of being OEM or OEM equivalent, I am not using common sense at all but from numerous brokers that I know and insurers!
Actually the OP asked about insurance and the wheels.