[NWH]

There’s only a limited amount of insurance companies that cover carrying a water tank or should I say underwriters,if you do an online form you can put down what you like if you don’t include certain things it’s ok saying it didn’t say this and that but you may as well be driving around with no insurance.

[Arnold Palmer]

If you are not overloading your van it's going to be very difficult for any insurance company to get out of paying because your van was carrying stuff.

Carrying stuff is, after all, the whole modded point of vans.

Asking for more money because you are carrying water is nothing more than a shake down.

[Arnold Palmer]

Anyone got any examples of an insurance company not paying out because someone had a water tank?

[NWH]

Some underwriters will only insure you if you have either an ionic or Grippa system they go hand in hand with a replacement vehicle with fitted system,I’ve had this conversation many times with the brokers when I’ve had quotes.
My argument was why other window cleaners were paying a lot less than me in most cases half the premium,in reality there is a lot of insurers that will let you fill in an online form for insurance you don’t have to state if you have a tank fitted in the back you can insure yourself as a cleaning business and the 3-4 brokers I spoke to told me this is the reason. A couple of months ago I spoke to A Plan they only had a few brokers that would insure WFP window cleaners,I could go online and insure myself and not mention I have a tank to save a couple of hundred quid why take the chance,I think it’s tempting for window cleaners that only do local mileage that don’t get about 50 mile an hour but I do a lot of miles. 
 

[NWH]

Also all the Companies A Plan use only cover up to 650lts.

[Tristan R Clean]

Not true NWH
I am with them and have a 700ltr tank

[EandM]

Anyone got any examples of an insurance company not paying out because someone had a water tank?

Specific examples, no but I have had plenty of in depth conversations with a number of insurance companies over the past decade, specifically for the purpose of insuring a water tank. Skip to the last paragraph if you'd like to avoid the waffle.

The primary response from most of the companies, at least initially, was simply down to how they understood the term 'modifcation'.

Some companies viewed that as ANYTHING the vehicle didn't have when it left the factory - non standard audio, seats, trim, racking, tanks, wheels, tyre sizes etc.

One company wouldn't allow me a bolted down tank as it was a 'modifcation and may affect the integrity and safety of the vehicle'.
My response was that I'd just chuck it in the back, to which they designated it an 'unsecured load.' and wouldn't cover that either.
I asked if a wheelbarrow needed to be secured and they said no as that was 'cargo' and could be removed.
I then pointed out that a water tank could easily be removed and, like a wheelbarrow,  was therefore 'cargo' too.
We went around in circles for a bit until I realised it was pointless and moved on.

The conclusion was: Each insurance company uses a different set of parameters for determining risk.
SOME will not insure AYTHING added to the vehicle without in depth breakdown / premium loading and  much arguing.
OTHERS simply do not care what you do within the confines of what is legal - like my current insurers who are quite happy with my unsecured tank and my frequent off road activity.

If you have an insurance company that quibbles over anything and you had any modifications that you hadn't declared and were then involved in an expensive accident they will simply pay out for the 3rd party damage and then sue you personally for the loses they've incurred. If it runs into hundreds of thousands of £ then they'll simply take your assets to recoup.
This also occurs with modified cars and some policies with a drink drive exclusion where the driver was over the limit.

[Arnold Palmer]

Anyone got any examples of an insurance company not paying out because someone had a water tank?

Specific examples, no but I have had plenty of in depth conversations with a number of insurance companies over the past decade, specifically for the purpose of insuring a water tank. Skip to the last paragraph if you'd like to avoid the waffle.

The primary response from most of the companies, at least initially, was simply down to how they understood the term 'modifcation'.

Some companies viewed that as ANYTHING the vehicle didn't have when it left the factory - non standard audio, seats, trim, racking, tanks, wheels, tyre sizes etc.

One company wouldn't allow me a bolted down tank as it was a 'modifcation and may affect the integrity and safety of the vehicle'.
My response was that I'd just chuck it in the back, to which they designated it an 'unsecured load.' and wouldn't cover that either.
I asked if a wheelbarrow needed to be secured and they said no as that was 'cargo' and could be removed.
I then pointed out that a water tank could easily be removed and, like a wheelbarrow,  was therefore 'cargo' too.
We went around in circles for a bit until I realised it was pointless and moved on.

The conclusion was: Each insurance company uses a different set of parameters for determining risk.
SOME will not insure AYTHING added to the vehicle without in depth breakdown / premium loading and  much arguing.
OTHERS simply do not care what you do within the confines of what is legal - like my current insurers who are quite happy with my unsecured tank and my frequent off road activity.

If you have an insurance company that quibbles over anything and you had any modifications that you hadn't declared and were then involved in an expensive accident they will simply pay out for the 3rd party damage and then sue you personally for the loses they've incurred. If it runs into hundreds of thousands of £ then they'll simply take your assets to recoup.
This also occurs with modified cars and some policies with a drink drive exclusion where the driver was over the limit.

"No" would have done fine.

[EandM]

Anyone got any examples of an insurance company not paying out because someone had a water tank?

Specific examples, no but I have had plenty of in depth conversations with a number of insurance companies over the past decade, specifically for the purpose of insuring a water tank. Skip to the last paragraph if you'd like to avoid the waffle.

The primary response from most of the companies, at least initially, was simply down to how they understood the term 'modifcation'.

Some companies viewed that as ANYTHING the vehicle didn't have when it left the factory - non standard audio, seats, trim, racking, tanks, wheels, tyre sizes etc.

One company wouldn't allow me a bolted down tank as it was a 'modifcation and may affect the integrity and safety of the vehicle'.
My response was that I'd just chuck it in the back, to which they designated it an 'unsecured load.' and wouldn't cover that either.
I asked if a wheelbarrow needed to be secured and they said no as that was 'cargo' and could be removed.
I then pointed out that a water tank could easily be removed and, like a wheelbarrow,  was therefore 'cargo' too.
We went around in circles for a bit until I realised it was pointless and moved on.

The conclusion was: Each insurance company uses a different set of parameters for determining risk.
SOME will not insure AYTHING added to the vehicle without in depth breakdown / premium loading and  much arguing.
OTHERS simply do not care what you do within the confines of what is legal - like my current insurers who are quite happy with my unsecured tank and my frequent off road activity.

If you have an insurance company that quibbles over anything and you had any modifications that you hadn't declared and were then involved in an expensive accident they will simply pay out for the 3rd party damage and then sue you personally for the loses they've incurred. If it runs into hundreds of thousands of £ then they'll simply take your assets to recoup.
This also occurs with modified cars and some policies with a drink drive exclusion where the driver was over the limit.

"No" would have done fine.

"No" would have been incorrect.

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/8164221.car-owner-being-sued-by-her-insurance-firm/

[Arnold Palmer]

Anyone got any examples of an insurance company not paying out because someone had a water tank?

Specific examples, no but I have had plenty of in depth conversations with a number of insurance companies over the past decade, specifically for the purpose of insuring a water tank. Skip to the last paragraph if you'd like to avoid the waffle.

The primary response from most of the companies, at least initially, was simply down to how they understood the term 'modifcation'.

Some companies viewed that as ANYTHING the vehicle didn't have when it left the factory - non standard audio, seats, trim, racking, tanks, wheels, tyre sizes etc.

One company wouldn't allow me a bolted down tank as it was a 'modifcation and may affect the integrity and safety of the vehicle'.
My response was that I'd just chuck it in the back, to which they designated it an 'unsecured load.' and wouldn't cover that either.
I asked if a wheelbarrow needed to be secured and they said no as that was 'cargo' and could be removed.
I then pointed out that a water tank could easily be removed and, like a wheelbarrow,  was therefore 'cargo' too.
We went around in circles for a bit until I realised it was pointless and moved on.

The conclusion was: Each insurance company uses a different set of parameters for determining risk.
SOME will not insure AYTHING added to the vehicle without in depth breakdown / premium loading and  much arguing.
OTHERS simply do not care what you do within the confines of what is legal - like my current insurers who are quite happy with my unsecured tank and my frequent off road activity.

If you have an insurance company that quibbles over anything and you had any modifications that you hadn't declared and were then involved in an expensive accident they will simply pay out for the 3rd party damage and then sue you personally for the loses they've incurred. If it runs into hundreds of thousands of £ then they'll simply take your assets to recoup.
This also occurs with modified cars and some policies with a drink drive exclusion where the driver was over the limit.

"No" would have done fine.

"No" would have been incorrect.

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/8164221.car-owner-being-sued-by-her-insurance-firm/

Sorry, I missed the bit in there where they talked about the water tank. What size was it? A £700 Vauxhall Corsa probably isn't the ideal workhorse for carrying large tanks of water, I'd use a van for that.

Carrying stuff is not modifying. Carrying stuff is what vans are designed to do.

Furthermore the example you gave did not end with any recouping or taking of assets.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-11717295

After a brief hearing, at which Mrs Bissmire, of Sedgehill Road, Catford, London, was not present, the judge ruled that Diamond Insurance was entitled to "avoid" the policy.

The ruling means that substantial damages claims now likely to be made by Mr Morris's family and others injured in the accident can only be taken up with the Motor Insurers Bureau, the industry body that compensates victims of uninsured drivers.

[NWH]

Not true NWH
I am with them and have a 700ltr tank

The girl I had a conversation with 2 months ago when I renewed told me 650 was the maximum for the company I was going to be going with.

[֍Winp®oClean֍]

Not true NWH
I am with them and have a 700ltr tank

The girl I had a conversation with 2 months ago when I renewed told me 650 was the maximum for the company I was going to be going with.

You must have some kind of insatiable desire to be persistently stitched up like a kipper NWH😄😄

[NWH]

Must have then I’m only repeating what I was told by A Plan I would never do an online policy anyway I like to know what I’m getting and I know it’s recorded 👍.

[Arnold Palmer]

Must have then I’m only repeating what I was told by A Plan I would never do an online policy anyway I like to know what I’m getting and I know it’s recorded 👍.

Maybe it's van specific? My van would be very near the limit at 750...

[EandM]

Anyone got any examples of an insurance company not paying out because someone had a water tank?

Specific examples, no but I have had plenty of in depth conversations with a number of insurance companies over the past decade, specifically for the purpose of insuring a water tank. Skip to the last paragraph if you'd like to avoid the waffle.

The primary response from most of the companies, at least initially, was simply down to how they understood the term 'modifcation'.

Some companies viewed that as ANYTHING the vehicle didn't have when it left the factory - non standard audio, seats, trim, racking, tanks, wheels, tyre sizes etc.

One company wouldn't allow me a bolted down tank as it was a 'modifcation and may affect the integrity and safety of the vehicle'.
My response was that I'd just chuck it in the back, to which they designated it an 'unsecured load.' and wouldn't cover that either.
I asked if a wheelbarrow needed to be secured and they said no as that was 'cargo' and could be removed.
I then pointed out that a water tank could easily be removed and, like a wheelbarrow,  was therefore 'cargo' too.
We went around in circles for a bit until I realised it was pointless and moved on.

The conclusion was: Each insurance company uses a different set of parameters for determining risk.
SOME will not insure AYTHING added to the vehicle without in depth breakdown / premium loading and  much arguing.
OTHERS simply do not care what you do within the confines of what is legal - like my current insurers who are quite happy with my unsecured tank and my frequent off road activity.

If you have an insurance company that quibbles over anything and you had any modifications that you hadn't declared and were then involved in an expensive accident they will simply pay out for the 3rd party damage and then sue you personally for the loses they've incurred. If it runs into hundreds of thousands of £ then they'll simply take your assets to recoup.
This also occurs with modified cars and some policies with a drink drive exclusion where the driver was over the limit.

"No" would have done fine.

"No" would have been incorrect.

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/8164221.car-owner-being-sued-by-her-insurance-firm/

Sorry, I missed the bit in there where they talked about the water tank. What size was it? A £700 Vauxhall Corsa probably isn't the ideal workhorse for carrying large tanks of water, I'd use a van for that.

Carrying stuff is not modifying. Carrying stuff is what vans are designed to do.

Furthermore the example you gave did not end with any recouping or taking of assets.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-11717295

After a brief hearing, at which Mrs Bissmire, of Sedgehill Road, Catford, London, was not present, the judge ruled that Diamond Insurance was entitled to "avoid" the policy.

The ruling means that substantial damages claims now likely to be made by Mr Morris's family and others injured in the accident can only be taken up with the Motor Insurers Bureau, the industry body that compensates victims of uninsured drivers.

The point I was making was your or my liability under law.
Your or my interpretation of what is or isn't permisslbe to carry is irrelevant - it is down to the opinion and terms & conditions of the individual insurance company.
Some are reasonable some or not.
This applies to anything that the insurance company believes it should be notified off - whether that be water tanks or a change of wheels.

In the case of Diamond Insurance - they were attempting to duck their responsibility to compensate the third parties and apparently suceeded.

I looked up the relevant legalities as handled by a law firm:

" Specific Detail – Uninsured Drivers Scheme

The driver of the offending vehicle must be fully identified and the vehicle uninsured. (If a vehicle is insured, but the driver is not insured for any reason, then generally the insurers will have to pay the claim as part of their responsibilities under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Paying a claim as RTA insurers enables the insurers to try and recover sums paid out from the responsible party/their policyholder) "

"The MIB is a fund of last resort and so will look to an insurer to deal wherever possible"

https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/news_and_events/uptodatenews/uninsured_driving.html




This is a horrendous outcome but presumably the driver had no assets no seize?
Young chap, driving his mother's car and presumably still living at home?

[KS Cleaning]

Not true NWH
I am with them and have a 700ltr tank

The girl I had a conversation with 2 months ago when I renewed told me 650 was the maximum for the company I was going to be going with.

When you ring these types the last thing you want to be talking about is water tanks😉

[EandM]

Not true NWH
I am with them and have a 700ltr tank

The girl I had a conversation with 2 months ago when I renewed told me 650 was the maximum for the company I was going to be going with.

When you ring these types the last thing you want to be talking about is water tanks😉

If they don't ask the question then it's not a problem.
Unfortuantely, whenever I put my occupation as 'Window Cleaner' they do ask me.

[NWH]

Lol they definitely ask and as for if they don’t ask don’t tell them that’s not a good idea when it comes to any kind of insurance.

[Bungle]

Oh dear Mr lorry driver, you’ve had a crash. What were you carrying on the trailer? I had 20 2 ton RSJ’s held down by chains. No problem your load seems like it was secure. Here’s ££££’s payout.

[EandM]

Lol they definitely ask and as for if they don’t ask don’t tell them that’s not a good idea when it comes to any kind of insurance.

Answer all and every question truthfully...but don't proffer any information.
If they know what they're doing, they'll ask you.
If they don't, I wouldn't want to insure with them.