News CLICKY

What a load of bollocks. I dislike preachy religious types as must as the next person, but that's just daft. Stickers will in no way affect the performance of the car nor alter the risk to the insurer.

Sounds like they're looking for any excuse not to pay a genuine claim.

What a bunch of gits. I imagine they were still sitting with their fingers in their ears when the media turned up...

I'm amazed anyone is surprised. Anyone who has ever dealt with a domestic insurance company knows they consider their job to be to accept your money and never give any of it back under any circumstances. Basically put, if you want fair treatment from them you have to give them no avenue at all to wriggle out of their responsibilities. If that means being disingenuous, well, you can bet your life they will be if it's to their advantage.

This is part of the justification for cars being driven without insurance The people doing it believe the insurance companies are dishonest, so why shouldn't they be? It's wrong but it's somewhat hard to argue with when you hear what insurance companies do.

Strictly speaking any deviation from factory specs is a modification. But most small cosmetic mods should not impact on driving nor will they lead to accidents.

Putting a sticker on it is no more a 'modification' than putting a box of tissues on the back shelf.

Or putting a driver in the driving seat.

I suspect the real reason was the non-standard cigarette lighter port she'd added in the boot, which is a fact that's hidden away in that article. Possibly poses a higher fire risk?

But yes, all insurance companies are thieving sh1ts that will use any excuse not to pay out.

Oh, I don't know, those people with those white Apple stickers on their cars, they are asking for it, aren't they?

If it was go faster stripes and the car had been involved in a high speed accident, then you could use the stripes as a pointer the the driving attitudes of the driver, but religious stickers, flowers, Green Peace or whatever? Tosh!

Although we had one programmer thrown off a project in the 80s, because he had Green Peace stickers on his car and somebody at the client noticed them (they saw him getting out of the car 2 streets away from the client's offices). That said, it was a supplier to the British Armed Services, so they were a little sensitive about such things.

There was something on the radio this morning. A consumer affairs person was saying that, basically, yes any modification - even cosmetic - should be declared as they count as a modification, and insurance companies are looking for any reason not to pay out.

So technically would removing the unwanted dealer's sticker for the rear window count as a modification?
I'm assuming not as it wasn't there when it left the factory.

To this day I don't understand why so many people leave those stickers on their car.

I hate them too. It's like free advertising. I've had two cars and both of them, within the first week of ownership, had the tax disc holder replaced and any stickers removed.

There was also a bizarre story about this on Jeremy Vine’s programme where a BBC correspondent had been knocked off his motorbike by a car. The insurance would not pay out because the car had been resprayed yellow. The thing is that the driver was insured BUT not covered because of the modification.

I love (hate) the fact that they are trying to say it is because they are religious stickers.

This is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with covering up the windscreen and potentially decreasing visibility inside the car.

I don't agree with that at all but ask anyone what this is about and they will say religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No - the car in question didn't have stickers on the window. Visibility isn't the issue. It's changing the appearance of the car beyond how it rolled out of the factory.

Ah right. Well I disagree with that even more. It still isn't about religion though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk