"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 1:34 pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
...

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive
was cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were
through the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Different insurers. There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA,
they
think people that want RTA are a poor risk.

RTA is not the same as TPF&T.

I don't see anyone saying they are.

You used the term "RTA" in answer to a post about "TPF&T". It
certainly looks like you think they are the same thing.

The poster that posted TPF&T replied to mine about RTA, however I don't
think he thought they were the same.
They are related posts, not answers to specific questions.

Just to be clear..

RTA is the bare minimum you can drive a car with.. it covers personal injury
to others and not much else.
TP covers damage to others properties as well
TPF&T adds theft of vehicle and fire
Comprehensive adds others but they do vary.


MBQ