3rd party vs Comprehensive

pashka_2

Hi,

Could someone explain please why is it considered better to insure a car older than 3 years 3rd party only but not comprehensive?

Cheers

P

tattooed_lady

Hi Pashka,

I don't have an answer to the question but would really like to know the reason too!

dangermoose

It isn't. The best insurance is whatever you want to get.

Some companies won't even quote 3rd party only unless the value of the car is below a certain amount.

In this day and age does anybody want to save a tenner by not insuring a car against theft? Even old bangers get pinched by kids that can't circumvent the alarms on newer cars.

Basically if you can't get the insurance you want you are probably dealing with the wrong company. They all find their own niche and specialise in the area that has been most profitable for them in the past.

If someone is telling you that it is better to insure a 3 year old car third party only it can only mean better for them. They have something to gain - either extra commission or a quota to fill. Shop around and follow Martin's tips.

Lady_K

Well all I'd say is it should really go on the value and condition of your car and at 3 yrs old it shouldnt have lost that much value. If you had an accident if your 3rd party fire and theft and the accidents your fault you wont get anything for your car at all. If its not your fault you'l be able to claim on the other persons insurance. It sounds a bit dodgy someone suggesting you go for 3rd party. Personally I'd have fully comprehensive on a car 3 yrs old unless you want to take the risk. Its just cars that are very low cost that are worth insuring on 3rd part because the cost of insuring them could outweight the value of replacement.

My daughter was 3rd party and she got to her 10th month of her first year and had an accident, she couldnt claim on the car at all as she is the one liable. I just know its been a real struggle having to get another car on top of increased insurance. Also if your car is on finance or anything I'm sure you'd need fully comprehensive. Other important things too are legal cover and couresty car because without those too can be a problem. My daughters car is 8 yrs old and shes going for fully comprehensive

lisyloo

I have a car that is 15 years old and worth very little.
I only went 3rd party because I didn't see the point of fully comp.
In an accident my car is likely to be a write-off because of the low value.
I will get a small amount of cash in hand after the excess is deducted and Esure don't even give you a courtesy car if yours is written-off.
Therefore this year I went 3rd party.

However 3 years old is nothing.
It all depends on your requirements but I would have thought fully comp would be better.

blue_haddock

I would generally say that cars worth over about £2000 should be insured fully comp but under that it makes more sense to drop down to third part, fire and theft.

allycat999

Check out the quotes for third party and fully comp then think how much your car costs. Third party insurance will not pay out if someone crashes into you that is not insured, as there is no third partyto claim off. It is amazing how a little damage can cost a fortune to repair. I personally would always have fully comp insurance on anything over £500.

blue_haddock

allycat999 wrote:

Third party insurance will not pay out if someone crashes into you that is not insured, as there is no third partyto claim off.

No but the MIB will!

lisyloo

blue_haddock is correct but I would also like to point out that just because someone doesn't have insurance doesn't mean they aren't liable.
They can be pursued through the legal system.
Of course if they have nothing or dissapear then it may not be successul.

One of the advantages that comprehensive cover gives you in an non fault accident, is that you can get the car fixed straight away on YOUR cover and then pursue the 3rd party at leisure whilst your car is back on the road.

This is very useful if you rely on your car.
It's a different matter if you have several cars or can get to work by train etc.

As with all insurance you need to consider your requirements.
Personally I won't pay for cover I don't need, so have 3rd party only this time.

impy78

blue_haddock wrote:

No but the MIB will!

This is true, but it can take up to 6 months, and you will also have to pay out an excess to the MIB.