MSE News: Fully comp car insurance cheaper than third party!
Former_MSE_Guy
Posts: 1,650
Forumite
This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:
"Startling research shows comprehensive motor insurance is typically cheaper than third party, despite the fact it gives much greater protection.
If true, quite perversely, it means the better your insurance is, the less expensive it often becomes ..."
"Startling research shows comprehensive motor insurance is typically cheaper than third party, despite the fact it gives much greater protection.
If true, quite perversely, it means the better your insurance is, the less expensive it often becomes ..."
Read the full story:
Fully comprehensive car insurance cheaper than third party
Fully comprehensive car insurance cheaper than third party
0
Comments
-
Of course it is worth a go at getting quotes on comprehensive cover in addition to TPFT/TPO. However, I'd like to see moneysupermarket's methodology on this study.
If they've not compared like-for-like premiums then it doesn't really tell us much. People who face the highest premiums (younger drivers, those who have nil or little NCD, those who live in a high-risk area) are likely to choose TPFT cover precisely because their premiums are high.0 -
Any chance the title for this thread can be changed? it implies that the cheapest price is the best policy. Anyone who has read the posts on here about Swiftcover knows that is absolutely not the case (to name just one example)I was born too late, into a world that doesn't care
Oh I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair0 -
Sorry, but I think this is a complete misunderstanding of the statistics.
That the average TPO and TPFT customers are paying more than the average FC customer, I don't doubt.
The reason for this is that they are higher risk customers - fully comp would cost a fortune, so they choose lower levels of cover out of necessity, not choice.
TPO/TPFT would not be more expensive than FC for the same customers.0 -
I must admit when I saw the title of this thread I thought they meant buying the cheapest possible cover and not what they actually mean.
Interestingly the article on the main MSE site has a more descriptive title http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/insurance/2009/08/the-best-insurance-is-often-the-che?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=box0 -
Degenerate wrote: »Sorry, but I think this is a complete misunderstanding of the statistics.
That the average TPO and TPFT customers are paying more than the average FC customer, I don't doubt.
The reason for this is that they are higher risk customers - fully comp would cost a fortune, so they choose lower levels of cover out of necessity, not choice.
TPO/TPFT would not be more expensive than FC for the same customers.
That was my first interpretation too - though when you read it they include the like for like issue. We also did our own comparisons (far less than 1.5m though ) and in a good few fully comp was cheaper.
My view is quite simply if you're interested in getting third party as you think its cheaper then you should get a comp quote too in case its not.Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 0000 -
Thanks for changing the title.
Keep up the good work0 -
Another trick if you have a low value car and only want TPF&T is to look at comprehensive quotes but with a big voluntary excess, this can sometimes offer a much cheaper price that getting TPF&T. With most companies you only pay the excess if you claim for your own repairs and it does not increase the excess for Fire and Theft Claims. So if you hit another car and its your fault you do not pay an excess unless you try and claim for your own repairs.
The added bonus is you get Windscreen Cover with an excess of circa £60 and windscreen claims generally do not affect your no claims bonus.
Please do not do this with Aviva or Swiftcover as they normally apply the increased excess to fire and theft claims. (If anyone else knows of any other companies that increase the fire and theft claims when opting for a voluntary excess please feel free to post them and if you know any Insurers that have an all sections excess (Nasty nasty company) please post.0 -
Shame (once again) about the sloppy, poor, sensationalist journalism in the first place though.
MSE GUY does tend to have a habbit of doing this.
mabe he also works for the sun or daily mail?
5 MILLION WILL DIE FROM SWINE FLU (possibly, mabe if no vaccine was avaliable and every person is 90 years old with a terminal illness)
is this one of yours MSE GUY?0 -
How Insurers decide on premiums is a total mystery to me. The only extra risk insurers take with FC, as opposed to TPF&T is own vehicle damage, where there is no one to claim from. So the cost shouldn't be much more as the risk is likely to be relatively low, unless you own a supercar.
There are some extra benefits such as glass cover and the insurance company will help with a claim from a 3rd party with FC, your'e on your own with TP.
As Martin says, tweaking the finer details can produce some surprise results. I have been shopping around for my high risk son's insurance some went up when we changed on street parking to on drive parking0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 342.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 249.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.3K Spending & Discounts
- 234.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 606.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 172.7K Life & Family
- 247.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards