PDA

View Full Version : Car Insurance - Third party v Fully Comp.


Arfur Feck-Sake
25th Nov 2007, 18:23
What do I lose if I change my car insurance from fully comprehensive to third party, fire and theft? I drive an old banger and would be lucky to get 500 for it. Just wondering, as someone suggested I'm wasting my money on high insurance costs.

BDiONU
25th Nov 2007, 18:47
You'd lose the difference between whatever the insurance company decide your banger is worth if they considered it Beyond Economic Repair if you were in an accident and what you think its worth. Given its a banger it probably wouldn't take much to make it BER and the insurance company are unlikely to value it at 500.
If I were you I would go 3rd fire & theft, prolly save a 100 or so.

BD

stagger
25th Nov 2007, 19:17
You'd lose the difference between whatever the insurance company decide your banger is worth if they considered it Beyond Economic Repair if you were in an accident and what you think its worth.

This is not the difference between a comprehensive policy and one that only covers third-party, fire and theft (TPFT).

Both will value your car in a similar way.

A TPFT policy will pay out to third parties for damage you cause to their car (or to them), and will also pay out if your car is stolen or damaged by fire. However, it will not pay out to repair or replace your car if you are involved in an accident that is your fault (or is caused by an unknown or uninsured third party).

If you are involved in an accident that is someone else's fault you would need to recover your repair costs from their insurer.

A comprehensive policy will pay out to repair or replace your car if you are involved in an accident that is your fault (or is caused by an unknown or uninsured third party).

Another common difference is that comprehensive policies often include cover allowing you to drive someone else's car (albeit with only TPFT cover while you do). TPFT policies may not.

JackHowe
25th Nov 2007, 19:33
Check the situation WRT No Claims Bonus - you might not qualify if you subsequently return to Comprehensive Insurance . . .

Comprehensive Cover might include loan of a replacement vehicle if your car is damaged (but read the small print as this might only apply if your vehicle is 'economically reliable' - if it's considered a write-off then you could be left high and dry anyway).

If you use your car for travel to-and-from work, check that any policy that you have (or are offered) covers that - it's become a recent 'saving' that some companies have applied in order to quote lower premiums.

Saintsman
25th Nov 2007, 19:35
Do they still do third party only? If so that'll be even cheaper and will provide the minimum cover required by law.

calypso
25th Nov 2007, 19:56
Fully comp will pay you only in the event of an accident that is your fault, otherwise the other party insurance would pay you.

They will pay:

Their valuation of your car. Lets call it 70% of the real value
Minus your insurance excess
Minus the loss of your no claims bonus for the next time round
Minus the extra you will be charged for having claimed recently (yes this is in addition to the loss of the no claims and you will be asked even if you move insures "any claims on the last 5 years"?)

In reality it will be more expensive to claim than to take the banger to the breakers.

Third party only. Forget the fire and theft (who is going to nick it anyway).

No brainer.

frostbite
25th Nov 2007, 21:01
Quite a few companies no longer offer 3rd party insurance of any flavour and the difference in premium from some that do is tiny.

A2QFI
25th Nov 2007, 21:56
Frostbite is correct. I think it possible that you cannot get an NCB applied to a TPFT policy and on that basis it can out the same as full comp with NCB applied. The point about time spend on TPFT not countin towards no claims if you revert to a full comp policy is probably true too, with some companies anyway.

calypso
25th Nov 2007, 22:09
I have ten years no claims on third party only insurance. I recently bought a classic car and opted for fully comp and they did accept my no claims discount (mind you only six years of it). The difference, in my case, between third party and fully C. is about 150.

It always amazes me the Brits love affair with insurance. Specially this protected no claims, an insurance against having to claim on your insurance :rolleyes:. A new thread for that, perhaps.

Background Noise
25th Nov 2007, 22:25
There is less difference it seems these days between TPFT and comprehensive premiums. Same as you I had an old car with little value but comp gives additional benefits like a replacement/hire car if yours is out of action following accident and other stuff like windscreen replacement.

niknak
26th Nov 2007, 00:10
Liverpool and Victoria (used to be Frizzels I think) quoted me 10 more to insure my 96 VW Polo 1.4 fully comp' for myself and the Mrs.

spekesoftly
26th Nov 2007, 00:27
comp gives additional benefits like a replacement/hire carBut do check the comprehensive policy. A number of car insurance companies now charge an extra premium for loan cars, and the loan period may be restricted to only 14 days - not very long for a major repair.

Blacksheep
26th Nov 2007, 02:48
A friend of mine had his BMW 740 SE insured third party only. I expressed surprise.

He said that he had only ever had third party insurance. He had never had an accident in fifty years of motoring and if his BMW was written off, no matter. He bought it with the money he had saved in insurance premiums and still had enough left over to replace it twice.

UniFoxOs
26th Nov 2007, 09:54
The last time I checked it was exactly as Background Noise and Niknak say, so little difference that it was not worth considering going to TPFT. Apparently it is all to do with the size of personal injury claims (you backed into me - whiplash - half a million, please) - the cost of repairing cars is relatively minor.

UFO