Jump to content


Site Contributor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Jon61

  • Rank
    Boxa - Team Player
  • Birthday 08/23/1961

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Horsham West Sussex

Previous Fields

  • My Ride
    981S PDK (GT silver/garnet red/red). Also OH's Audi A5 Sportback

Recent Profile Visitors

3,322 profile views
  1. Jon61

    Zunsport grills

    I found when I fitted mine (S not GTS) that sometimes you need to adjust the curve of them slightly to get them to fit properly. So offer them up in place, see where they're not quite fitting flush and then gently bend them by hand before trying again - usually only a few millimetres. I've seen some people online complaining about the need to do this, but to me it's inevitable with something that is basically handmade to a template. Having said that, I believe there have been occasions when they simply don't fit correctly. So if they look as if they're never going to fit into the correct place, I would suggest taking some photos with them as close as you can get them, to show where they overlap (or whatever), and emailing Zunsport about it - they seem pretty good at rectifying issues like this.
  2. I never saw this thread originally, so was very sorry to hear the hear the bad news ... but it sounds as if it's now taken a turn for the better so well done Patt. And it sounds as if you've been able to hold onto Alice too? Great that it's sorted before Christmas.
  3. Someone else will confirm or correct me if I'm wrong, but I think for some reason Zunsports only make grilles for a pre-facelift 986(.1) whereas your is a 986.2, which has different apertures & strakes in the front bumper. I don't understand why Zunsport don't make this clear on their website - the car pictured there is a 986.1 but for other models (eg 987) they have clearly distinguished between pre-and post-facelift models, so I suppose a reasonable inference for the unwary is that the grilles you've bought would fit both 986.1 & .2 I've never needed to test this, but I gather (from other reports on here) that - notwithstanding this cockup on their sales page - Zunsport are good at sorting out issues, so I would definitely hope that (if what I've said is right) you'd have no difficulty returning your order to them for a refund. I think the only solution for the 986.2 is a homemade DIY one. PS This post from Ed seems to confirm that Zunsport don't do grilles for a 986.2 (using the search facility on here is a bit of a black art): And have a look at this thread where others talk about that they did - and it includes a link to Ed's own DIY grilles:
  4. I don't want to derail this thread, but as the original questions seem to have been answered, perhaps I can ask a related one: When a private plate is assigned to a car that had previously only had an ordinary number assigned at initial registration, my understanding is that the original number was effectively put into 'limbo' and not re-issued to a different vehicle. I had assumed that if the private plate was later taken back of the car, that the car might revert to the original registration, but the DVLA link above (on page 4) seems to say that it gets given a 'new' registration, which I take to mean one never previously issued (of the same year-series), rather than the one it had originally held. Is that right? (It would seem to make more sense to reassign it the original registration, as the owner might still have those plates already made up, though of course common sense might not figure in DVLA's reasoning ...)
  5. Police Mutual ... I'm surprised that Ian has only just become a customer Myself, I've just accepted the inevitable and gone with Saga - big drop in premium and I get European comprehensive cover without needing to inform them beforehand of trips.
  6. My understanding of the situation is as follows: For a long time, insurance was based on the insured person's obligations to disclose anything that could be material to the insurer, when taking out or renewing their insurance. It is clearly difficult for laymen to understand in all cases what would or wouldn't be material, but the basis of the contract between the two parties was still written that way. It inevitably caused some disputed over claims - more so in insurances like home & motor than long term (life) insurance. Because of this, the law changed in 2013 with the Consumer Insurance Act, which put more onus on insurance companies to ask specific questions, rather than rely on the catch-all duty to disclose. Nevetheless, that Department of Transport document was written after that new Act came into force, so they still seem to think this is something that - if you know it - you should volunteer to your insurer (Note the issue in this thread wasn't about the situation where the insured didn't know his car was a Cat D). A few other relevant points: - complaints against insurers from individuals (ie consumers, rather than businesses) very rarely come to court; they are normally settled by the ombudsman's ruling (which is binding on the insurer, but not on the insured - they could still take it to court of they wished but the costs would be astronomical, which is precisely why the ombudsman's bureau exists). Even though they are quite sympathetic to genuine consumer complaints, the ombudsman still finds in favour of the customer in typically less than a third of motor insurance cases. - the situation of disputed claims is also not a simple Accept/Reject decision - even if the ombudsman decides that an insurer should not be allowed to void the contract for inadvertent non-disclosure (as they might have done in the past), the outcome might be that the claim is allowed, but the insurance policy would be recalculated as if the information had been disclosed at outset and the insurance issued on the basis of the higher risk - ie lower sum insured would have been offered for the premium paid - so the insured could still get back less than they were expecting. - the situation is different if the insured is a business rather than a consumer - often a business is deemed to be a more sophisticated buyer of services, and a higher level of understanding is expected of them, so they often get less favourable treatment in law than consumers. The 2013 Act above does not apply to business insurance. In practice, I think claims are more often (still) rejected because the customer has incorrectly answered the question at renewal "Has anything changed since the last renewal?" when they've changed eg occupation or employment status, but don't think to say so because they don't understand that it affects their premium. The reason the insurer has asked for this information originally however is because it does. I also think that it makes sense to tell your insurer something relevant even if they don't ask. Contrary to some people's views, insurance companies are not simply trying to rip off their customers. If they were, they would make massive profits every year (they don't), and their share prices would significantly outperform other sectors (they don't). Even if the ombudsman might be likely to find in your favour, it would be unwise to rely on this as an alternative to being open in the first place.
  7. Quote from the Department of Transport's "Buying repaired 'written off' vehicles - A Consumer Guide" : " Following Purchase • If you haven’t already, inform your insurer that the vehicle has previously been declared a total loss: ─ If you fail to do so, your insurer can reject any claim you may make on the grounds of non-disclosure." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470496/buying-repaired-written-off-vehicles.pdf
  8. Saw the photos of your 981 with your 4 digit number on full length plate. I also have a 981 but with a 5 digit number, I get my plates made up @fancyplates.com with the correct spacing but the length adjusted for the 5 digits. IMO think it makes such a difference. I bought a new front plate mountIng and adjusted the length to suit the new plate. Unfortunately the old plate mounting holes had to be filled and sprayed but it had to be perfect. An idea, just in case you are as pedantic as myself. Regards Neil.

    1. Jon61


      Thanks for this but my car does not have a 4-digit registration - that's simply me blanking part of it, so as to not show my full registration on here (quite a few people do this - it's referred to every so often).

  9. Hi Jon61,

    What I posted were the best pic I could fine. I would be greatful for some pics and measurements. You are correct, I am one of the common people seperated by a common language. I thought that showed but I see it dosen't I'll correct.

    Thanks again,


  10. Privilege offer a multi-car discount on separate policies although I don't think it is as much as the full NCD.
  11. It doesn't necessarily alter your argument for gap insurance, but I must be missing something - the price quoted on that website is £1200 more than the price on the Porsche Tequipment website?
  12. Yes it should be, and I would try to persuade them to do so, but it may be in your interests to do some if they are being a bit amanhã (?) about it.
  13. Non-expert thoughts: - If you had the equivalent of comprehensive cover, then surely your insurer should pay you even if they can't recover it from the other party or their insurer? (Of course you may not choose to claim if you know your insurer is picking up the cost and will just load your future premiums to recover it - is that what you meant by 'at my cost'?). - Even if the delivery company had any other type of insurance (eg general liability) I would expect that to specifically exclude any liabilities arising from vehicle claims. The company itself should be still liable and you'd expect to have enough assets to pay, but I suspect you'll get sent on a wild goose chase about who the truck belonged to, whose responsibility it was to renew the insurance etc. before somehow finding that the company was miraculously bankrupt or something similar. - Regardless of whether it's you or your insurer trying to recover the costs from the other side, if it comes down to court proceeding against the delivery company itself (as opposed to insurers dealing between themselves) then there must be a chance that it would all cost too much (without even a guarantee of success, even if you have some sort of written admission) and wouldn't be worth doing? Unless perhaps there is an equivalent of a Small Claims Court in Portugal that could cover matters like this. - Probably a daft question, but would your police take any interest in them driving without insurance? (eg criminal proceedings that you could somehow piggy-back a civil claim onto?) - I presume you don't have any extra legal cover on top of your motor insurance (or even your household insurance) that could give you any guidance in this? Good luck getting it sorted out, although I suspect it may not be a particularly favourable outcome I'm afraid.
  14. Hi have you got a number I can call you on about the car? Text / call me on 07860 955452. Thanks Paul 

    1. Jon61


      Thanks Paul, I have replied by text anyway, but you can call me on 07867 976735


  15. dear jon


    please contact me on   tpacr11@gmail.com re the boxster





    1. Jon61



      Thanks for your messages, and apologies for the delay in replying; my post yesterday prompted several enquiries.

      Please call me on 07867 976735, anytime day or evening, or email me on jon.archibald@ymail.com if that is easier (I think messaging on the TIPEC forum is fairly straightforward, although I am new to it as well.  I will also send this by email and probably call you a bit later on the number you gave if I've not heard from you.


  • Create New...