View Full Version : can somebody please explain fully comp
what does it cover me for on the bike is it worth it over tpf&t at £40 less.:confused:
kwak zzr
03-08-09, 04:04 PM
i always think if your young or the bikes not worth much whats the point? if your young you wont claim for your own stuff anyhow.
i paid £3500 for it i'd be bolloxed if it got wrecked or nicked.
speedplay
03-08-09, 04:07 PM
Its worth the extra in my opinion.
Last year when the copper took me out and drove off my insurers paid me out straight away.
Im still fighting with the police now, If I were only tpft id have to fork out the cash to replace my bike myself.
kwak zzr
03-08-09, 04:08 PM
eBay is your friend :) sv's are cheap to fix, most times cheaper than your excess.
kwak zzr
03-08-09, 04:10 PM
if were only talking £40 then id say piece of mind to go comp anyhow.
yeah but what is covered say if i dropped it in the garage or a seagull dive bombed it at 60 and exploded violently on it would that be covered.
SoulKiss
03-08-09, 04:16 PM
yeah but what is covered say if i dropped it in the garage or a seagull dive bombed it at 60 and exploded violently on it would that be covered.
Yes, but you would be better off not claiming if the damage is about the same as your excess in both cases.
In the 1st you would have to be VERY unlucky to have to claim, on the second if you then slid the bike up the road then you would maybe have a situation where its worth it.
Dicky Ticker
03-08-09, 04:16 PM
Sorry don't understand TPF&T £X and FULL COMP £X-£40Its a no brainer----take the fully compFull comp covers you for all damage less excess even if its your fault where as TPF&T only covers you for damage you cause to a 3rd party and theft. In the event of an accident that is not your fault the fully comp will fight your corner for everything.TPF&T leaves you to sort it out yourself unless you have legal protection.Not quite all correct but gives you a rough idea
Think you're pretty much covered for eveything bad which can happen to it. No point in claiming if you dropped it like, but if someone was to seriously vandalise it you would be covered. It's always a trade off between the excess £ and the loss of no claims bonus vs the real repair costs.
Luckily I don't have excess at all, well for the first claim per 12months that is!
£300 excess so it would need to be quite fubar to actually need to claim.
SoulKiss
03-08-09, 04:26 PM
£300 excess so it would need to be quite fubar to actually need to claim.
Very much so considering you have a Naked SV - Headlights or Fairing on an S-model are £300 each new, but you dont have that to worry about. :)
Bluefish
03-08-09, 07:24 PM
£40 extra it's a no brainer, get fully comp.
Speedy Claire
03-08-09, 09:11 PM
For an extra £40 you`d be mad not to choose fully comp.
My situation some years ago........ I paid nearly £3,000 for a CBR600 and very foolishly due to the cost only insured it 3rd party F & T. Months down the line I get dive bombed by a kamikazee pheasant which knocked me out cold and the bike and I ended up in a 10 foot ditch.
My bike was written off and I lost nearly £3,000. Had I been fully comp I would have been able to recover that cost and buy another bike.
You would be totally insane (in my opinion) not to pay the extra
From the OP, I think FC is £40 CHEAPER than TPF&T, so double no brainer. :D
From the OP, I think FC is £40 CHEAPER than TPF&T, so double no brainer. :D
Finally, an opportunity to prove that proper-grammar-pedantry is worthwhile.
is it worth it over tpf&t at £40 less.:confused:
means 'is it worth buying FC insurance over TPFT which is £40 cheaper?'
whereas
is it worth it over tpf&t, at £40 less.:confused:
means 'is it worth buying FC insurance over TPFT which is £40 more expensive?'
What a difference a comma makes, eh? You don't get that with txt spk.
slark01
03-08-09, 09:43 PM
lol @ DAN
Sound advise as usual, always go full comp and shop around for the best deals.
means 'is it worth buying FC insurance over TPFT which is £40 cheaper?'
means 'is it worth buying FC insurance over TPFT which is £40 more expensive?'
Poor grammar there too, I'm afraid. Which is cheaper, FC or TPFT?
'is it worth buying FC which is £40 cheaper than TPFT?'
or vice-versa would be more betterer. ;)
Bluefish
04-08-09, 12:44 AM
surely fc will never be cheaper than tpft?, wish it was.
Poor grammar there too, I'm afraid. Which is cheaper, FC or TPFT?
or vice-versa would be more betterer. ;)
what's spanish for **** off :D
surely fc will never be cheaper than tpft?, wish it was.
I always find FC to be cheaper than 3rd P. or TPFT for my cars. Can only guess that more responsible people go for FC so they are less likely to claim :smt102
Although given that I set my excess at 10 times the value of my car, it's effectively TPO. :(
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.