what towing car ?

otherclive · Dec 18, 2016

MichaelE said:
Whilst MTPLM is a useful figure to use when matching car to its caravan its not absolute, in as Prof says axle loads are the key legal figure. Many makers artificially keep MTPLM low in order to attract buyers of new caravans who may have lower kerb weight cars. The penalty is that payload is compromised. Whilst in fact for some vans the MTPLM can be subsequently raised by the caravan maker for a small fee. Look at Baileys Pursuit 430/4 which can have its MTPLM increased to 1300kg a 70KG+ increase. Similarly several other in Baileys range too. There are no physical change to the chassis/axle as the margins are already built in.

You are referring to the caravan , but the issue is the cars maximum tow weight , surely you dont want to plate the caravan to make it heavier?

Not really sure what you mean. Replating to increase the MTPLM doesn't increase the weight of the caravan.

Raywood · Dec 19, 2016

Re plating the caravan will not make it heavier it just gives you a better margin when loading. The only downside I can see is it might just put some people off when it comes to selling it as it might then appear potentially too heavy for their car. I doubt it would make any real difference to the selling price in practice though.

ProfJohnL · Dec 19, 2016

Hello Michael,

I'm sorry but you clutching at straws on this one.

The trailers MTPLM is a limit, not a weight, an important difference. Also the MTPLM includes the nose load, which does not form part of the towed load.

The nose load is not forgotten, its carried by the tow vehicle, and so it must be considered as part of the cars axle loads.

I have frequently explained that the nose load of twin axle is a particularly sensitive issue and it changes aggressively if the height of the hitch is different to its working height.

Now to this old chestnut of the invalid insurance. When you take out standard car insurance the policy is issued ob the basis of the cars standard specifications including the cars maximum towed weight limit. If the insurance company wants to apply different limitations, they MUST be included in the terms and conditions when the policy is taken out. They cannot apply new limitations such as the one you describe after the fact.

There are two circumstances where such an out come might arise and be miss reported, firstly if the vehicles permitted towed weight was less than the cars ulw, or if the driver only had a Cat B (not BE) which limits the driver to trailers where the MTPLM must not exceed the car ULW. In both cases the driver would have been driving illegally and thus without insurance.

MichaelE · Dec 20, 2016

My point was why replate your caravan so you can carry more and yet your car is on the limit already?
Clutching at straws ? I fully respect your opinion!

ProfJohnL · Dec 20, 2016

MichaelE said:
My point was why replate your caravan so you can carry more and yet your car is on the limit already?
Clutching at straws ? I fully respect your opinion!

Hello Michael,

In respect of this thread, neither the OP nor Kwaked has suggested replating, that was your interpretation.

As for the rhetorical question that Kwaked asked several posts ago about the legality of running 100kg over the tow cars maximum towed weight limit, sadly that is strictly a no no, and if you are caught then there could be several charges that could be brought, the first is overloaded vehicle, they could also check the axle loads and if the axle is also overloaded they could also add that as a charge. If the outfit was brought to the authorities attention as the result of some incident, they could also add dangerous driving. and unsafe vehicle. Also your insurance would be invalidated if you are overloaded.

Its not worth the risk, as each if those offences would carry points, and some can in the worst cases also carry prison sentences.

In terms of if its detectable, purely on the points of actual weights vs limits, to prosecute the authorities would have to weigh the outfit. As some weighbridges have a certificated accuracy of +/-10kg and most +/-20kg thus an 100kg overload would be measurable.

Would the DVSA prosecute? well that is not certain. If they suspected it were a genuine mistake, they would probably detain the vehicle until you could remove enough payload to bring it back into range, You might get away with a caution. If on the other hand they suspect it should have been detected by the driver before the journey started or it was a deliberate action they could choose to prosecute.

MichaelE · Dec 20, 2016

Sorry Prof but I never suggested or interpreted to have the caravan replated ?
I simply replied to another poster who said it could be done
I simply asked why you would want to be able to carry a bigger payload when you are on the limit already

Raywood · Dec 22, 2016

The point about insurance is not simple. The fact that a car was towing a trailer in excess of its maximum weight would not automatically invalidate the policy. Under current regulations the insurer would have to show it was a contributory factor. A serious snake on the motorway might allow the insurer to repudiate but pulling out of a side road when something was coming should not.
I do also wonder about prosecutions for overloading if you exceed the MTPLM but the caravan could be uprated to that figure or more without any alteration. On that basis there must be an argument that the actual maximum was not exceeded and the caravan was not overweight but simply exceeded an artificial figure used by the caravan builder to sell more caravans.

ProfJohnL · Dec 23, 2016

Raywood said:
...
I do also wonder about prosecutions for overloading if you exceed the MTPLM but the caravan could be uprated to that figure or more without any alteration. On that basis there must be an argument that the actual maximum was not exceeded and the caravan was not overweight but simply exceeded an artificial figure used by the caravan builder to sell more caravans.

Hello Ray,

The second point you made in your last post has made me reexamine the issue of MTPLM vs MAM vs Axle Limits for trailers. The implications and consequences are different depending on what approach you make to subject.

Legally the assessment of over loading (as different to other load related offences) is determined by measuring the load in question and comparing it to the stipulated limits. The only grey bit is the calibration of the measurement device and the tolerance required to to remove all uncertainty. Once any measurement error is removed the matter is very black and white.

But your point is what is the limit? Regardless of what can be done by the manufacturer to upgrade the MTPLM, unless that process has been undertaken, the limit is what the caravan is registered as having at the date of the alleged offence.

It long been a practice to have goods vehicles down plated where they are transporting bulky low density products. To get a vehicle suitable for the volume means purchasing a vehicle of the next weight rating and then getting down plated. Mechanically its quite capable of carrying more than its plated weight, but if it is stopped and found to be loaded above its plate, the offence is overloading based on its plated weight not its mechanical capability.

The offence of overloading is different to having a dangerous load. A dangerous load is more difficult for the crown to prove, and whilst overloading could result in a dangerous load, its important to understand that sometimes a dangerous load does not have to mean a vehicle is over loaded.

For drivers with only CAT B licences there are other pitfalls. Consider a Cat B driver purchasing a secondhand caravan, where the basic specification states the MTPLM which is just below their tow vehicles ULW, but then the previous owner of the caravan had the MTPLM increased which takes it over the tow vehicles ULW, the new owners licence would be invalid.

How insurance companies accept liability or otherwise will depend on the individual case. For example if there as a provable case of deliberate overloading, I suspect the insurance company would seek redress from the policy holder, If the incident was accidental, then the insure may take a more lenient view.

Thingy · Jan 5, 2017

Initially we looked at Shoguns, but i struggled to find a good one to be honest.
8 out of 10 had really bad rust problems (over the rear wheel arch specifically) others had diffs on the way out,

I would try looking in a dealership rather than a scrap yard. B)

Shoguns have a reputation for rock solid reliability abd being as tough as nails. Im not saying this because I have one, I bought one for that reason. Actually had two. Not as smooth as your BMWs etc, but these are workhorses, not Chelsea chariots with a strange accent. Fantastic commanding driving position, all the bells and whistles you could want. Large carrying capacity, 7 seats, go anywhere, pull ANY van all day long.

Also had xTrails and a Volvo XC70 and would recommend those too.

Dustydog · Jan 13, 2017

How insurance companies accept liability or otherwise will depend on the individual case. For example if there as a provable case of deliberate overloading, I suspect the insurance company would seek redress from the policy holder, If the incident was accidental, then the insure may take a more lenient view.

Unless I use quotes, All advice and opinions

Read more at http://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/towcars/53900-what-

towing-car#3bK7PAdvU36K7rpX.99

Hi Prof.
In real world time I think you will find no UK insurer has ever repudiated policy liability on the basis you state

ProfJohnL · Jan 13, 2017

Dustydog said:
How insurance companies accept liability or otherwise will depend on the individual case. For example if there as a provable case of deliberate overloading, I suspect the insurance company would seek redress from the policy holder, If the incident was accidental, then the insure may take a more lenient view.

Unless I use quotes, All advice and opinions

Read more at http://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/towcars/53900-what-

towing-car#3bK7PAdvU36K7rpX.99

Hi Prof.
In real world time I think you will find no UK insurer has ever repudiated policy liability on the basis you state

Hello Dusty,

I don’t know if they have or not, but I have absolutely no doubt that they could if they chose too.

The basis of my position is that a policy is issued if both the proposer and the insurance company agree the terms and conditions of the policy. That is the contract. It is not expressly defined but based on the proposer’s stated vehicle make and model, the insure will draw the details of that vehicle from their databases in its standard configuration, and will use that information in the generation of the policy.

I believe that all motor policies now require the policyholder to inform the insurer of any material changes made to the motor vehicle that might affect the insurers risk assessment. The insurer reserves the right to review the risks and to amend their policy offer accordingly and that can include withdrawing a policy or refusing to offer a policy, and many shades in between including special conditions. Effectively the Insurer holds all the cards.

It is part of every motor policy; that the policyholder is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is roadworthy, and that the policyholder will abide by all legal driving requirements.

One of those legal requirements is that the vehicle must be operated in a safe manner.

By definition overloading is unsafe, and if that action can be shown to be deliberate the insurer can legitimately point out that the vehicle was knowingly being operated outside of the cover provided by the policy. As a consequence an insurance company could seek redress for any monies paid out as part of a claim from the policyholder.

In addition they could also deem that claim to have been fraudulent, and as such declare the policy VOID and blackmark the policyholder on the insurers database.

Raywood · Jan 14, 2017

Overloading could only be a reason for the insurer to turn the claim down if it was a cause of the accident and after one has occurred that could be difficult to prove. If it was not the cause of the accident but the insurer became aware of it though they might increase the premium at renewal on the basis you were a worse risk than that you declared.
Overloading cannot be fraud though as there is no way off showing that the policyholder was trying to gain any advantage through their actions. Fraud is where you try to get a reduced premium by deliberately telling a lie to get the insurance or a reduced premium.
It is correct though that if they are able to turn down the claim they can look to the policyholder to recover any payments made to third parties and that can be very substantial.

ProfJohnL · Jan 14, 2017

Raywood said:
...
Overloading cannot be fraud though as there is no way off showing that the policyholder was trying to gain any advantage through their actions. Fraud is where you try to get a reduced premium by deliberately telling a lie to get the insurance or a reduced premium...

Ray

I never suggested that overloading is fraud, but attempting to make a claim if you were knowingly overload is.

Raywood · Jan 15, 2017

ProfJohnL said:
Raywood said:

...
Overloading cannot be fraud though as there is no way off showing that the policyholder was trying to gain any advantage through their actions. Fraud is where you try to get a reduced premium by deliberately telling a lie to get the insurance or a reduced premium...

Click to expand...

Ray

I never suggested that overloading is fraud, but attempting to make a claim if you were knowingly overload is.

To be frank I have never met a claim where that has been established, even with commercial vehicles, where overloading can be a problem. It would be extremely difficult to prove knowledge, unless you admit it, and even then I am doubtful it would be regarded as fraud, although it might be grounds to turn down a claim if it was a cause of an accident.

ProfJohnL · Jan 15, 2017

Hello Ray,

I don't want to make this crusade, but what I have written is I believe technically correct, Whether insurance companies choose to pursue or not is up to them.

What I am certain of is that some drivers be overloaded, some will be unintentional, but I am also certain that some will be knowingly or even deliberately overloaded.

Hutch · Jan 15, 2017

I'm with the Prof, a neigbour of mine, brings the caravan back to to the house on a Thursday, loads bikes microwave, bedding, bbq, chairs and awnwning. And almost everything else.. " Oh were are only going 60 miles to the site. " wel over loaded. OUCH.

Dustydog · Jan 16, 2017

EH52ARH said:
I'm with the Prof, a neigbour of mine, brings the caravan back to to the house on a Thursday, loads bikes microwave, bedding, bbq, chairs and awnwning. And almost everything else.. " Oh were are only going 60 miles to the site. " wel over loaded. OUCH.

Looks are not every thing Hutch. He could be ok!?
On the Prof's Insurance point does anyone know of any one case where a claim has been rejected??
Even if it were the drivers Insurer under the MIB Rules will become the Insurer concerned and still have to deal with the claim . And yes they can seek redress from the policy holder. In practice it is highly unlikely due to potential "man of straw" syndrome and of course undisputable evidence of overloading. Ever seen a smashed up caravan

pitpony · Jan 16, 2017

After my recent run in with the regeneration of my DPF I would suggest to anyone buying a new or second hand diesel vehicle towing car to negotiate a warranty on the DPF because it is not covered by the vehicles warranty, in a lot of cases people are taking brand new vehicles back to dealerships with a DPF problem, and it is the same question they ask have you been doing short runs and going to the shops, this problem is not just related to make of vehicle, this problem is well reported inn the media when you start to do a search on the subject,

Raywood · Jan 16, 2017

Dustydog said:
EH52ARH said:

I'm with the Prof, a neigbour of mine, brings the caravan back to to the house on a Thursday, loads bikes microwave, bedding, bbq, chairs and awnwning. And almost everything else.. " Oh were are only going 60 miles to the site. " wel over loaded. OUCH.

Click to expand...

Looks are not every thing Hutch. He could be ok!?
On the Prof's Insurance point does anyone know of any one case where a claim has been rejected??
Even if it were the drivers Insurer under the MIB Rules will become the Insurer concerned and still have to deal with the claim . And yes they can seek redress from the policy holder. In practice it is highly unlikely due to potential "man of straw" syndrome and of course undisputable evidence of overloading. Ever seen a smashed up caravan

If you own your own home then you may be worth more than you realise. Just how far a company will chase you depends on their internal policies but they will look at the situation. If the house is jointly owned they might not be able to sell it from under you but they could put a charge on it so they can get their share plus interest when it is sold.
For people in work they can get an attachment of earnings order to get at a portion of your pay.

Keefanmaxx · Jan 16, 2017

On the Prof's Insurance point does anyone know of any one case where a claim has been rejected??

That depends on what the insurer thinks they are insuring. We have had to declare the towbar as a modification, which is recorded on the policy, and the fuel chip is recorded but not as a modification as it's not permanent.

My point here is that the insurers will always seek to reduce their payout and use things lke undeclared modifications to do so.

Ever seen a smashed up caravan

Yes ..... especially in my line of work!!

Raywood · Jan 17, 2017

The Ombudsman will only allow breaches of policy conditions to be allowed to avoid the claim if it is relevant. That would mean overloading would have to be proved, not easy after an accident and be a factor in the accident. On that basis I doubt anyone will know of a case and I certainly have not met the problem.
Non declaration of a material fact in assessing the premium could be grounds for avoiding the policy altogether if the truth would have increased the premium but under current rules the insurer has to have asked and the answer be wrong. As almost all companies accept tow bars at normal rates suggesting this would be grounds for increasing the premium would be an uphill struggle for an insurer but it is not worth the risk. If an insurer does increase the premium for a tow bar go elsewhere as they are having you on.

ProfJohnL · Jan 17, 2017

An incident involving a motor claims does not have to be a crash or the loss of integrity of the car and trailer ( if its towing one). Under those conditions the state of load would be perfectly detectable.

Raywood · Jan 18, 2017

ProfJohnL said:
An incident involving a motor claims does not have to be a crash or the loss of integrity of the car and trailer ( if its towing one). Under those conditions the state of load would be perfectly detectable.

Not sure what you are looking at the other main source of claims is theft which would prevent the insurer weighing it although they might query a claim if the contents claimed for were too heavy.

20170602yuanyuan · Jun 2, 2017

Search

what towing car ?

otherclive

Raywood

ProfJohnL

MichaelE

ProfJohnL

MichaelE

Raywood

ProfJohnL

Thingy

Dustydog

ProfJohnL

Raywood

ProfJohnL

Raywood

ProfJohnL

Hutch

Dustydog

pitpony

Raywood

Keefanmaxx

Raywood

ProfJohnL

Raywood

20170602yuanyuan

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts