Slightly OT - Insurance conundrum

NCD generally doesn't apply to TPFT.

In terms of risk (which is what Insurance Cos are interested in quantifying), the biggest amounts are paid for the damage that motorists do to other people, so the risk is not hugely less for TPFT compared to fully Comp.

=========================== My situation is the opposite of yours.

I've had TPFT for many years because I've always been able to repair my own car or afford to write it off if I damaged it. Just recently a speeding driver has written off my car and I've been messed about waiting for settlement. I was considering going to Comprehensive just to avoid the hassle in the event of having another 'accident'. Now that Comprehensive is actually cheaper than TPFT it seems pointless not taking it.

Cic.

The message from "OG" contains these words:

Really? Does for me.

I wouldn't even compromise TP,F&T as for last few years insurers have favoured fully comp

Try Confused.com for a comparison

I've never heard of ins Co's working like that before. The last 2 accidents I had were not my fault. My ins Co agreed. They paid for my repairs, and didn't ask me to pay the £250 excess on my policy. I also retained my maximum NCD. AFAIA the full cost of both claims were recovered from the third parties insurance. I was given immediate authorisation to arrange for the repairs to be carried out, and their assesor came to check the vehicle when it was in the repair shop. The car was still driveable on both occasions. All I had to do was book it in for the repairs, and sign a satisfaction note when I collected.

I make a point of not using budget insurance Co's for the same reason. I use a broker. Although he keeps recommending different insurance Co's almost every year to keep my premiums low, one question I make a point of asking before I accept his recommendation, is 'what are they like when it comes to making a claim?' Although after over 20 years with him, he knows I want a Co that wont give me any hassle in the event of a claim, rather than the cheapest he can find. Mike.

Completely and utterly wrong - who on earth told you that?

That bit's true though.

They obviously weren't doing their job properly. It's their job to do that.

Sounds like in your case, NUD just simply didn't do their job properly - don't know if that's what they're like in general.

It's really very minimal extra hassle - years back I was rear-ended, and I just got the guy's insurance details and got on to them directly. Crash happened Saturday morning, cheque through the door on the following Monday morning (9 days later) - Direct Line btw.

Especially with the benefits like windscreen protection, and other stuff you might have to end up paying for (like police storage/recovery in the event of a serious accident).

Shite gets spouted forth on usenet once again.

Mr Bongo - could you set up your newsreader so it removes sigs? All your posts seem to start below an old sig and look most peculiar...

ROFLMAO. Always has for me.

It's not that your newsreader is failing to remove sigs, it's that it's inserting them in the wrong place. Probably simplest just to get rid of them.

Tools -> Options -> Signatures, select the signature. Hit 'remove'. This will stop it appearing. Or unclick the box 'add signatures to all outgoing messages'.

cheers, clive

ok :)

Excellent. Next step for usenet greatness : you are allowed to remove the quoted text, you know :-)

(example above)

cheers, clive

Just do it manually. Takes very little time at all - that's what I do, and I'm on ShiteLook Express.

Failed again. ;-)

Yes, I noticed that. Probably half the problem.

picky picky :)