...I've just got Swiftcovered(.com), but can anyone explain how my new fully comp with protected NCB policy is cheaper than TPFT with the same company ??

Same with most insurance companies now. They consider TPFT as more of a risk.

It's all statistics. People on TPFT are riskier, I suppose because they aren't concerned about their own car as much so maybe are more likely to have an accident of any sort.

It's all statistics. People on TPFT are riskier, I suppose because they aren't concerned about their own car as much so maybe are more likely to have an accident of any sort.

Exactly.

TPFT drivers tend to have older cars and driving round in a banger does not make you more careful.

Exactly.

TPFT drivers tend to have older cars and driving round in a banger does not make you more careful.

Dosnt make you less careful either...............

Maybe not 'you' or 'i' or 'we',

but the Insurance underwriters have decided that there are 'them' and such as them that might be more likely to be less careful.

Or cost them more in the event of claims against the policy..

george

Mines was £700 cheaper by going tpft

+1 on what has been said, generally you are deemed to be a lower risk as you have either a better car or care more about it, so you will be more careful how you drive and park.

Mines was £700 cheaper by going tpft

That probably has more to do with the fact that you have proved that you are already a higher risk:

Insurance - reasonable bearing in mind i've been banned

The usual reason is a higher excess, either by default or a voluntary one you selected. People will often select rather high excesses to reduce the cost of insurance, then get effectively nothing in the event of total loss.

In my experience, TP always costs more than TPFT, but fully comp costs more then TPFT. Since I would never claim on a fully comp policy or make any use of it, I figure since TPFT is cheaper it's easiest to go with that. There's no point paying more for less cover, then again there's no point paying more for cover you don't need.

Well if thats your circumstances,

but for people that would struggle if they lost their car, and the excess is £350 & the car is only worth £1000,

they would still be loosing £650 they need.

Not many can afford to just loose the value of a car when it might not be their fault.

Thats not just the risk of Fire & Theft its flood & all sorts of other accidents including trees blowing over.

Be it only worth £500, £1000, £10,000 or more any car or vehicle i have gets full cover, on road or on SORN.

But you see thats the beauty when insurance rarely costs more than £200 fully comp.

Yet Third Party or Third Party Fire & Theft would cost me the same or more.

Different strokes for different folks.

george