- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Whispbar WBT31 3 bike tow bar carrier07.jpgCyclist denied car insurance claim for fitting bike carrier with removable towbar
A cyclist says he was denied a car insurance claim by an insurance company on the grounds of him fitting a removable towbar to the rear of the vehicle for a bike carrier, leaving him with a bill potentially going up to £100,000 along with “stress and anxiety”.
Stewart Crooks told road.cc that he had purchased the Allianz-owned Flow insurance policy via the MoneySuperMarket website. However, when he tried to file a claim after an incident in February this year, he was accused of trying to “deceive” the company for failing to list a towbar as a modification.
“I am at my wit's end in a nine-month dispute with my car insurance company,” Crooks said. “Following a routine vehicle collision, they have refused to honour my insurance at the last minute leaving me with a potential six-figure cost and the incredible stress and anxiety this has caused me and my family.”
He said that when he was applying for a quote, he selected ‘unmodified’, having clicked on the website’s ‘help’ link to determine what the question meant.
MoneySuperMarket states that a modification means a “change from the manufacturer’s original specification, such as alloy wheels, air-conditioning, bodywork, exhaust system or tinted windows”. However, it doesn’t mention whether a towbar is a relevant modification to a car’s original specification from an insurance perspective.
Crooks explained why he selected ‘No’ in the modifications section when filing the claim, saying: “Our previous insurer did not care when I called them to advise them we were fitting a towbar. In the modifications section of the purchase journey on MoneySuperMarket when asked if the car has been modified if you click on the ‘Help/What does this mean' section it lists alloy wheels, air conditioning, bodywork, exhaust system, suspension or tinted windows. This is why we selected no.”
He added: “What we now realise is that if we had selected yes, we would then have been presented a long list of options in which towbar is one. Given that my previous insurer had stated that the towbar did not affect the insurance and the guidance from the help button on MoneySuperMarket I had no reason to click yes instead of no.
“Similarly, as far as I can see, Flow asks for performance and cosmetic changes to be declared but nothing explicit about needing to declare a towbar. At no point was I asked directly if the car had a towbar.”
> Insurance firm to offer cyclists cheaper car insurance – because they're better drivers
After acknowledging that he had not intentionally misled them, Flow then claimed that it does not insure cars with towbars. “I challenged this as I could not find anything on the website or documents to validate this. Instead, I found a number of articles advising how to tow safely,” he continued.
“At this point, a number of friends of mine with towbars contacted their insurance companies to make sure they would not fall foul. All were told that this did not affect their policy. In fact, two were told that a towbar makes the car safer, and one was given a small reimbursement.”
Crooks mentioned that the towbar wasn’t even on the car as it was detachable, nor was the rear area of the car involved in the incident. However, the insurer dug in, saying that the towbar was not original and hence the policy would be void.
He said that after the lengthy dispute with Allianz/Flow, he contacted the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), with an investigator agreeing that the company was treating them unfairly and recommending to the Ombudsman that Crooks’ insurance should be honoured and compensated.
However, matters were made worse after the FOS decision ruled in favour of the insurance company. The Ombudsman cited the Consumer Insurance Disclosure and Representations Act on ‘misrepresentation’, which applies when information provided by the consumer to the insurer is incomplete or misleading, be it “carelessly, deliberately or recklessly”.
Crooks added: “I challenged his [the Ombudsman’] decision asking how he could have the opposite opinion to his colleagues, a selection of insurance experts and a number of lawyers, whilst reiterating that I have zero proof that Flow would not have insured us. In fact, I have the opposite with a number of examples of Flow advising how to tow safely. However, his final response did not address any of my points and instead just reiterated the decision.
“The fact that the Ombudsman has taken a polarising stance to everyone else and has not provided a single piece of evidence to justify so reeks of inappropriate behaviour somewhere in the relationship between the Ombudsman and Allianz-Flow.”
“The consequences of this decision are catastrophic. Aside from being without the car since February, the concern and stress of arguing this coupled with the colossal consequences have caused severe anxiety and depression (requiring medication) and other health implications let alone weeks of sleepless nights.
“The impact of this decision will leave us in monumental financial debt and heavily limited ability to procure future insurance if we are ever able to afford another car.”
> Whispbar WBT31 3 bike tow bar carrier
An Allianz spokesperson told road.cc: “We understand the distress caused by this accident. Making modifications to your vehicle can have serious implications for your car insurance policy if they are not declared, and can lead to a policy being invalidated.
“The policy chosen did not allow modifications and had we been informed that a towbar had been fitted we would not have provided insurance. The Financial Ombudsman Service has reviewed this case and its decision, which is binding, has found that the outcome we reached in this case was fair and reasonable.”
A spokesperson for MoneySuperMarket said: “We advise that if you make any modifications to your vehicle – or you purchase one that has been customised from the factory model – you should let your insurance provider know as it could impact your premium or invalidate your insurance.”
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after completing his masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Cymru, and also likes to write about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- Daclu Trelub 6 hours 32 min ago
That's just fucking outrageous.
- Barraob1 6 hours 41 min ago
You can hit something and have a loss of control and fall off. According to the article there was difference in height between the road surface and...
- Hirsute 7 hours 8 min ago
Double decker bus hits rail bridge - trains replaced with bus service. https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24843532.police-update-bus-hits-brid...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 48 min ago
Not fair - I think it's just a misquotation from "1984 On Wheels" EDIT "Animal Farm On Wheels" obvs... - "Two wheels good, four wheels better!"...
- Daclu Trelub 7 hours 23 min ago
Great stuff, the BBC is simutaneously pissing off the Left and the Right. Doing its job properly.
- pait 8 hours 17 min ago
I used a Carradice saddle bag plus a full frame bag from Rogue Panda on a weeklong trip last year. Having only one of them would have made the trip...
- don simon fbpe 9 hours 4 min ago
Right whingers gonna whinge!
- bobrayner 9 hours 27 min ago
This is an article about exciting bikes for 2025...? If you want an article about exciting steel bikes in particular, I'm sure there's one from 1995.
- TheHungryGhost 10 hours 5 min ago
It was on Reporting Scotland - The BBC One Scotland news that comes on after the News at 6
- Backladder 11 hours 38 min ago
So it is only universal to the frames that are designed to work with it?
Add new comment
82 comments
Not true ... my parents were big on caravans when I was a kid (1970s-1980s) and always paid extra on their insurance for having a tow bar fitted. As he took great "pleasure" telling me in detail when I asked his advice when considering fitting one for a bike rack.
Allianz is yet another shady "insurer" that weasels out of valid claims upon any technicality? Noted.
Using the flawed logic of "Flow" - using non OEM parts on your vehicle would constitute a "modification?"
Maybe other insurance companies are missing out here, they could be refusing to pay thousands of claims for "modifications?"
Sorry Sir/Madam/Other..... (or similar)
Upon inspection, it appears your vehicle was modified with an unbranded air filter / windscreen wiper; air freshener dangly thingy; therefore, your claim has been declined.
Kind regards (etc)
[Insert name of money grabbing blood sucking insurance company here]
Same for "car poppies" and other badges/stickers...?
Just thinking, what about those waste of money 3D number plates and dust cap tyre pressure monitors?
The guy says the towbar wasn't fitted at the time and the rear wasn't involved in the accident ,how did the insurance know ? And he claims 100k in debt which is almost impossible as he calls it an Innocuous accident
He actually called it
which is not a phrase that ought to exist.
In fairness, though, my reading of it is the six-figure sum he's quoting is not just the repair cost, but everything associated with the incident, including medical bills, possibly legal fees, etc.
Because a removable towbar needs to have a bracket installed under the car to attach the towbar to, along with associated wiring to plug trailer lights into. You can't just clip a removable towbar onto an unmodified car.
You're not answering my question ,here's me thinking you just hold it next to the car and it magically sticks to it .
Sorry, I thought I'd spelled it out in simple terms. Do you really thinks an insurance company would settle a 6 figure sum without inspecting the vehicles, or that the insurance company inspector is so incompetent as to not notice the non-standard bracket under the back of the car while he is looking for the go-faster exhaust?
I can't believe they do not insure cars with towbars! What if it's a manufacturer option? Sounds like total rubbish to me.
Quite - it makes no sense. If Allianz don't insure cars with towbars they would have to make that clear up front, since towbars are often manufacturer original fitment. Given that it appears they don't make that exclusion, they would have to explain how the risk is materially different for properly fitted towbars that are not original equipment in order to justify their otherwise contradictory stance.
It seems abundantly clear they are just shysters looking for gotchas. They deserve all the bad publicity they get.
If it is a manufacturer option that surely can't be described as a modification of the product post sales...unless it is a dealer fit thing of a 3rd party product, then who knows.
How many loop-holes can you fit in a single policy? If it is worded vaguely enough and ambiguously written in "lawyer-eze", as many as you need!
In theory, the FCA should not allow that kind of obfuscation to fly. There's a requirement for policies to use clear language and to be easy to understand as otherwise there's a clear argument that the policy was mis-sold as it doesn't cover what the customer expected it to cover.
What, this FCA:
That's an uncanny foretelling of the OP's account.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/26/fca-mps-peers-financial...
Yeah, I did write "in theory" as they are seen as toothless. I didn't realise that they're as bad as that report says though. (I work in insurance, but my job's just wrangling computers rather than actually dealing with the FCA though I've had basic training in their general principles in treating customers fairly etc).
I sympathise, but cheap insurance can have a hidden price....
Easy to say in hindsight, but always read the small print. I changed house insurance once because when I read the terms in detail, I discovered I'd agreed to keep the house above 15 Celcius at all times. There are parts of my house that don't go that warm with the heating on! An easy get out for the insurance company on a water pipe burst that one...
I doubt expensive insurance is a guarantee of no gotchas.
A marginally cheaper alternative could be to leave the cold taps running slightly all the time.
And/or install some pipe lagging. The spiral wrap from Screwfix (other retailers are available) does a really good job and can fit in very small spaces and notches.
And/or get some smart TRVs.
Other advice is available.
How does your "advice" change the fact that the insurance company stands not to pay out?
Yes, but even so, this case is like your home insurers refusing to pay out for a lightning strike - because you'd let the indoor thermometer slip below 15 degrees.
This requires more context, really.
Maintaining a constant temprature is generally stipulated on Unoccupied property cover, or if the main, full time residential dwelling is to be left unoccupued for any length of time, and the temperature is to be maintained often between Oct-April to try and avoid the bursting of frozen pipes.
A lightning strike is not related in any way to the temperature of the property so an insurer wouldn't stand a chance if they repudiated a loss based upon this and got taken to the Ombudsman!
Kind Regards, former broker & now underwriter for property risks.
Yes, exactly - and thank you for making the case for me. Now go back and read what I said, and you'll find we are in agreement.
A towbar changes the use of and thf the risk related to the vehicle so I would have thought it was necessary to declare it - perhaps the insurer should make that kind of modification included in the early FAQ info.
That might have some bearing if the OP was claiming for something in any way, however tangentially, related to the tow bar. But the tow bar is completely irrelevant. This sort of thing should be a slam-dunk under unfair contract terms. But the FCA is complicit.
The problem for the guy here is, it depends if you're looking at it from a mechanics logic or an insurance small print POV. I can see both sides but really, a towbar probably changes use in some ways like alloy wheels upgrades do and it's all linked to proabilities.
No. Having the apparatus for a removable towbar fitted, without even the tow hitch itself being fitted, in no way affects the probabilities of having an RTC. What is this other side that you can see?
I imagine the alloy wheels thing is a relic of the days when only more prestige cars were fitted with them and cars with them were regularly found in the morning on bricks with them no longer. Now that the vast majority of cars come with alloy wheels it is much less of a risk. I would see it reasonable for an insurance company to penalise a claimant or deny cover completely if the modification was a cause of additional loss or a materially affected the risk in a substantive fashion, but this looks like evasion of responsibility by the insurance company, but there may be other confounding factors we are unaware of, maybe an exaggeration of the claim which soured any reasonable expectation of good will from the insurers.
Doesn't matter if the claim relates to the towbar, the insurer has given a policy based on the disclosed facts and risk profile. Similarly, if you have contents worth 50k but decide to insure 20k and "self insure" the rest, insurer can theoretically refuse a claim even for the 20k because you misrepresented the risk. Racket!
This now has me questioning whether my roof-mounted bike racks count as a modification. I had always assumed it only applied to barking exhausts, lowered suspension, fluttering eyelashes on headlights - that sort of thing!
My experience is that Direct Line and Hastings both consider roof bars to be declarable modifications, but not the bike rack itself if it can be easily removed. Hastings also claimed that if I remove the roof bars when not in use I would have to call them again to remove the modification (each time incurring a fee to change the policy!). Declaring the roof bars made the insurance cheaper. I just leave the roof bars on the car to avoid any issues with insurance.
Pages