A warning to convertible owners - a lot of insurers seem to have put in a
clause in their policy under "theft" that the car is not covered if left
with the top down or the doors not locked.

This is a bit tricky with my MGA which does not have door locks, and as
putting the hood up and down is a long business, I often leave it for short
periods with just the toneau on.

Talking to my broker they have agreed to put in a clause that if locks were
not originally fitted they need not be used but are adamant that whenever
the car is left unattended the hood must be up. In the extreme, this makes
buying petrol a lengthy business if I have to put up the hood every time I
go to pay and, is it insured if left in the garage with the hood down? These
might be extremes but how much do you trust them not to try and wriggle out
of a claim.

So, check your policy.

Malcolm

Malcolm wrote:
A warning to convertible owners - a lot of insurers seem to have put in a
clause in their policy under "theft" that the car is not covered if left
with the top down or the doors not locked.

This is a bit tricky with my MGA which does not have door locks, and as
putting the hood up and down is a long business, I often leave it for short
periods with just the toneau on.


I would think the toneau is the same as a hood - neither off much
protection from theft.


Talking to my broker they have agreed to put in a clause that if locks were
not originally fitted they need not be used but are adamant that whenever
the car is left unattended the hood must be up. In the extreme, this makes
buying petrol a lengthy business if I have to put up the hood every time I
go to pay and, is it insured if left in the garage with the hood down? These
might be extremes but how much do you trust them not to try and wriggle out
of a claim.

So, check your policy.

Malcolm


My suggestion would be to talk to the insurance company directly and get
it clarified in writing what they have to say.

If you can't get any satisfactory answers then its time to seek another
insurance company.

Its not that you want to have your car stolen and I think also if you
take other measures to protect your car (or ask what measures from the
company) that would ensure it harder for it to be stolen then that
should suffice and exclude the other provisions in your policy.

My policy does not contain anything like that but you have to own a
vintage, classic or limited edition to have insurance with them. Started
by people, who looked after there cars and appreciate what they own
(classics), who were over charged or refused insurance. They found there
was a lower risk factor with this group of people.

The company was bought out by a major insurance group but still maintain
the basis of what it was setup to achieve.

Insurance companies and new car warranties stink and only there protect
those companies able to afford good legal advice not the consumer. Most
policies only work one way.

Next time I buy a new car, the warranty terms will be mine, not there's.
If they don't like that they can keep the car.

r

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:23:29 +0100, "Malcolm"
wrote:

A warning to convertible owners - a lot of insurers seem to have put in a
clause in their policy under "theft" that the car is not covered if left
with the top down or the doors not locked.

This is a bit tricky with my MGA which does not have door locks, and as
putting the hood up and down is a long business, I often leave it for short
periods with just the toneau on.

Talking to my broker they have agreed to put in a clause that if locks were
not originally fitted they need not be used but are adamant that whenever
the car is left unattended the hood must be up. In the extreme, this makes
buying petrol a lengthy business if I have to put up the hood every time I
go to pay and, is it insured if left in the garage with the hood down? These
might be extremes but how much do you trust them not to try and wriggle out
of a claim.


It's not only convertibiles that produce silly clauses and conditions
from insurance companies. I'm currently having great fun with
insurance quotes for a Range Rover. A lot of the big companies insist
that before they will insure it that it must be fitted with a Thatcham
Cat2 equivalant imobiliser.

Now this would make sense if it was a new range rover. It's not. It's
a 1989 RR TDi which is probably worth £1500 at best, and this one is
certainly not in best condition. Far from it, it's a tatty off-roader.
But, because its a "prestige" vehicle it's gotta have an
imobiliser.....

Mind you, as the big companies unerringly produce the most expensive
quotes anyway, I shall not be using them. Just for reference, a
certain premier insurance firm which claim not to be fleecing you
because they don't deal via middle men produced a quote double that of
the cheapest offer i could find. And Norwich Union should be ashamed
of the £1081 the quoted me, over 4 times the best quotes.

Alex

Snip
And Norwich Union should be ashamed
of the £1081 the quoted me, over 4 times the best quotes.

Alex

If you can't afford the insurance, don't buy the car, stop whinging you old
woman!

In article ,
Malcolm wrote:
A warning to convertible owners - a lot of insurers seem to have put in
a clause in their policy under "theft" that the car is not covered if
left with the top down or the doors not locked.

This is a bit tricky with my MGA which does not have door locks, and as
putting the hood up and down is a long business, I often leave it for
short periods with just the toneau on.

Seems a nonsense to me. The hood - and door locks if fitted - on this sort
of car offer f**k all protection against theft. Anymore than the ignition
switch does. It could be argued that mechanical protection (crook lock
type of thing) would be all the more obvious with the hood down and deter
a thief.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Alex wrote:
Mind you, as the big companies unerringly produce the most expensive
quotes anyway, I shall not be using them. Just for reference, a
certain premier insurance firm which claim not to be fleecing you
because they don't deal via middle men produced a quote double that of
the cheapest offer i could find. And Norwich Union should be ashamed
of the £1081 the quoted me, over 4 times the best quotes.

Where are you? I'm central London, on street parking only, and got a
decent quote from DL which I accepted on an SD1 with the same engine as
the Range Rover. But worth rather more.
Actually cheaper than my previous classic policy *and* without the
restrictions on use.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23 Jun, 00:14, "Aansar Ali Sunnah" Aansar
wrote:

If you can't afford the insurance, don't buy the car, stop whinging you old
woman!

What's the point of a posting like that? It doesn't add anything to
the discussion, and just make you look rather silly. Fifteen years
old?

Ian