Comprehensive v Third Party Car Insurance?

BusyDee

Hi all

I have a quote for fully comp car insurance £256.86 plus an extra £29.50 if I take out Legal protection and Increased Personal Accident.

My car is reg 1996 so old but in good nick, I am looking to change it soon.

Any advice on not going fully comp and if so would it be best Third party, Fire and Theft or just Third Party.

I do less than 3000 miles a year so it's hardly used.

Any advice will be gratefully received.

soolin

Only you can really answer that question as it depends on how much the car is actually worth and what your excess is.

If the car has a very low value then it might be worth just third party on the basis that if the car was stolen your excess would mean you would almost certainly get nothing much back anyway. My father got to this situation, a car valued at £300 and a £250 excess.

However if you have a low excess you may want to work out how much of a risk the car being stolen actually is, and if it did get stolen how you would finance buying another with no insurance pay out.

BusyDee

soolin wrote: »

Only you can really answer that question as it depends on how much the car is actually worth and what your excess is.

If the car has a very low value then it might be worth just third party on the basis that if the car was stolen your excess would mean you would almost certainly get nothing much back anyway. My father got to this situation, a car valued at £300 and a £250 excess.

However if you have a low excess you may want to work out how much of a risk the car being stolen actually is, and if it did get stolen how you would finance buying another with no insurance pay out.

Many thanks for the reply. Will have to do my maths.

X

erb

The other thing to look at is how much the premiums are fully comprehensive V third party. I have done this recently and the difference was only about £30 so stayed with fully comprehensive.