A couple of months ago, I sought your advice concerning Churchill Insurance's insistence that my MR2's replacement stainless-steel exhaust was a "modification" and therefore merited a premium increase of almost 50 per cent - they were immovable, despite my threat to go elsewhere. Whilst you agreed that everything has to be declared, you also recommended Liverpool Victoria as an alternative (and more reasonable) insurer. I am now insured with them, on exactly the same terms as Churchill's and at a somewhat lower premium... and I have declared the exhaust system.

LV also gave me credit for the (non-standard, retrofitted) immobiliser/alarm - for which Churchill had given no recognition. I wish to thank you for doing me a great favour with your counsel. However, there remains a serious issue.

In their final statement to me, Churchill's underwriters maintained their contention that the replacement exhaust increased the risk of theft but they also insisted that any alteration from a vehicle's production-line condition is regarded as a modification. Taken to extreme, this implies that any third-party replacement component, including an anti-theft system, invalidates the insurance. Where does that leave the likes of KwikFit and the non-agency garages, who routinely replace everything from filters to alternators, through exhausts, tyres, bearings and drive-shafts with third-party supplied items? I doubt that the average owner knows - or cares - who supplies his vehicle's components. Perhaps the motoring public should be made aware of this situation (even if it applies only to Churchill's clients).