It is renewal time - as usual I have trawled the web and come up with an odd quote.
My car insurance that is up for renewal is 8 yrs old and although I have Comp Ins I dabbled with the idea of 3rd party.
Same Company for all 3 prices
Comp - Self & Wife - £200 excess Premium = £220
3rd Party F&T Self & Wife Premium £196
Comp -Self & Wife - £1,000 excess £166
Taking a large excess might not be advisable but it is Comprehensive it gives more cover than 3rd party e.g. winscreen cover, hire car in event of an accident etc etc and costs £30 less than 3rd party F&T.
In the end I have taken the existing Ins Co - £180 Comp with £200 excess - not bad for a Group 16 car all be it 8 years old
|
I have noticed something similar myself, in the past. Is it because one is not given no-claims discount on TPFT policies? I think that I heard this as an explanation some time ago.
|
|
I've had exactly the same discount in the past.
|
What you are really saying is that to save between £30 and £50 annually and end up with comprehensive insurance, you are/may be prepared to take on board a £1,000 excess figure.
Doesn't seem like very good economics to me...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
"Doesn't seem like very good economics to me...:-)"
Depends how often you expect to claim. I've driven for 26 years and not claimed on my own policy. The difference between his excesses was £800, difference in premium was £54, so I'd have paid 26 x £54 less = £1,404. I'd be £604 ahead. Plus, I'd have been covered if I had had to claim off my own policy.
V
|
|
|
|
I have noticed something similar myself, in the past. Is it because one is not given no-claims discount on TPFT policies? I think that I heard this as an explanation some time ago.
You do get no-claims on TPFT.
The reason Comprehensive can be cheaper is that there is more competition. That's how it was explained to me. The chances of the same company offering you a better price for Comprehensive than TFTP is small.
|
|
|
|
In the end I have taken the existing Ins Co - £180 Comp with £200 excess - not bad for a Group 16 car all be it 8 years old
8 years old ~ therein lies the reason for the cheapness.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Isn't a £1000 excess on an 8 year old car the same as having TPFT?
|
|
That's kind of the point: there'd be no prospect of the OP claiming on the own car damage element of the policy, but he may well have made use of the windscreen cover, driving other cars, etc. which were of course cheaper than free.
|
|
|
£1000 excess on a car worth say £2500 @ £166 / year
is much better than TP F&T on the same car at £196
Comprehensive:
Still covers own car in event of my own fault accident - Not covered TPF&T
£30 less per year for Comp than TPF&T
Windscreen Cover - Not with TPF&T
Guaranteed hire car in event of a claim - Not with TPF&T
++++
The above £196 TPF&T is the same Company as £166 Comp (£1000 excess) for the same car and same drivers
|
|
|
|
>>8 years old ~ therein lies the reason for the cheapness.>>
Annual mileage also plays a key role.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
>> In the end I have taken the existing Ins Co >> £180 Comp with £200 excess - not bad for a Group 16 car all be it 8 years old 8 years old ~ therein lies the reason for the cheapness.
I paid £250 to insure this car 5 years ago and each year the premium has declined to today's £180.
It was worth some £10K then and £3K.
HOWEVER I still reckon paying £30 less for Comprehensive than TPF&T is a bargain for the same car, sames drivers, same mileage - the extra cover is not free it is £30 less than free !!!
|
Surely this is occuring because the Insurance industry bases the rate for insuring a vehicle on
policyholder claims hisrtory
Named drivers history and relationship
profile of claims history of the type of vehicle vs policy type
location and mileage
In this case I would guess that they probably have a profile that shows a signifcant number of people who in the past have had 3rd party cover resulting in large claims. This would be true for example for a hot hatch favoured by the boy racer community who could not afford fully comp. cover.
However the profile for the car with the older drivers with good NCBs on FC policies have shown a favorable claims history.
On a purely statistical basis (which is what the bean counters will use), the weighting of the risk factors is working in your favour. Take it while you can! It maybe that the company are trying to also adjust the balance of their business towards a FC client base and discouraging 3rd Party business.
Hopefully No FM2R will be along shortly.
--
pmh (was peter)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard comprehensive was cheaper than TP as people who took comp cover were less likely to make a claim than those who took TP or TPF&T ,makes sense if true.
|
|
|
