|
I've a Saab 9000 getting to the point where it's probably only worth £1500 or so. I've alway had it fully comprehensive, with extras like windscreen replacement etc influencing this choice. At what point does fully comp become uneconomic?
|
In my opinion it doesn't. My wife's car is worth about £500 and she pays £250 fc, tpft would be about £150, but the peace of mind is worth paying the extra.
Its about more than the value of your car. Its about things like uninsured losses and having an accident with an uninsured driver. How much extra will the FC be over the TPFT?
|
|
II got quotes for the Defender when I bought it.TPFT seemed the logical choice. Ins. Co did not bat an eyelid on its origins saying it made no difference to its p[remium. What baffled me was that TPFT was 4p (yes 4p) more expensive than fully comp. Strange but true.
|
|
I remember reading somewhere that those with full comp have a lower claims record than people who insure TPFT. Premiums are obviously based on perceived risk.
|
The days of TPFT being a cheap insurance alternative are long gone. Legislation which has been introduced over the years has meant that many of the extra items covered, like passenger liablity, found in comprehensive policies, have now had to be written into TPFT ones as well. Also, damage to other peoples property.
I don't bother asking for quotes for TPFT any more, it simply just isn't worth it.
|
I recall speaking to insurers about this when insuring a fleet of 40 cars. Their view was that people seeking TPFT as cover tended to have worse claims records, could not get proper cover and so they priced TPFT accordingly.
When getting quotes for youngest son's first ever car, TPFT was "only" £100 cheaper on £900.. and the car was only worth £1200.. On that basis TPFT is not worth the risk/reward ratio.
madf
|
|
|
|
My own view is that if you've a good record, are the only driver, drive moderately and defensively most of the time, don't do mega miles and have a car worth less than £3000, then go TPFT but buy uninsured loss cover too.
I've had three accidents caused by third parties in ten years and have never had any problems claiming. I've never had FC insurance (on private cars). The industry has a scheme to protect you from uninsured drivers which we are all already paying into.
|
If the value of the car is less than the premium loading you would get over the next five years if you made a claim, then fully compehensive won't be worth the extra. On a £1500 Saab, it doesn't matter what you claim for, even a dented door, the insurance company will consider it uneconomic to repair and declare it a total loss.
Unfortunately, the data you would need to do the calculation isn't available, so you have to take a view. If you make a habit of running cheap old cars in high insurance groups, don't crash them very often, and wouldn't have a huge problem rustling up £1500 for a replacement if you did, I'd say go TPFT.
Richard Hall
bangernomics.tripod.com
|
I can't believe some people are paying full comp premiums on a car worth only £500! What peace of mind fc gives in those circs I don't know. You'd be better putting the difference between the 3PFT quote and FC quote in a savings account and take out the 3Pft option.
IMHO if the car is worth under £3k, you are better going 3PFT.
|
|
But Watcher, th whole point is that TPFT is on a little (very little FOUR PENCE in my my case) cheaper. In other words for 4p I get full windcreen cover, audio cover, cover for articles stolen.
|
Pug.
In your case I can see the sense in paying the 4p extra! However, I believe those are rare circumstances and for different parts of the country, your situation wont apply.
|
|
I remember when TPFT used to be half Comprehensive but with older vehicles having any driver over 25 I find about 10% extra for Comprehensive protected no-claims discount.
|
|
I wish!! I pay 36% of the best FC quote for TPFT. Okay the cars group 17, but I'm 37, full ncb (12yrs since a fault accident) and live in an area with one quarter the national average auto crime. If FC were just 10% more I'd lap it up!
|
|
|
|
|
I just did a double check on what the difference between tpft and fc would be. going tpfc would mean that we save a grand total of £45. it would take an awful long time to save up for a replacement car with that.
|
|
My fc insurance (on a car worth maybe 250-300) is twenty pounds more than tpft. If you add a glass premium to the tpft, then it costs thirty pounds MORE than fc, which of course includes glass. Since glass is the only thing I've ever claimed for, my own risk analysis tells me the twenty quid is worth it.
|
|
Many thanks for all the above. I'll be getting both TPFT and FC quotes in, but going on what's been posted I'll probably stick with FC.
|
|
|
|
|
Watcher, see my other post - TPFT was £60 more expensive than fully comp! At the end of the day, you have to buy something, it just proves there is no straight answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blowpipe, I have just renewed the insurance on my 9000. Unlike yours, it is only worth £200 or so (it's 1987, 2.0 non-turbo with 199,805 on the clock). I had a quote for £350 TPFT, but was offered fully comp for £290....reason being that few companies offer TPFT now, hence limited options on insurers. I found last year, when I did have TPFT, that it was not possible to add windscreen cover on. The exact figures are largely irrelevant, but it does show the principle. If you ask the broker for TPFT, then that's what they will offer - a *good* broker will do as mine did, and point out the cheaper option!
|
There was a long thread on this months ago where several people stated that the TPFT premium was more than for FC.
C
|
|
|
|
