Protected no claims and an "at fault" claim (theft

[c_dug]

Hi all,

I'm looking at renewing my insurance and I weighing up the balance between TPO and TPFT.

Realistically if I am going to loose 6 years no claims I am unlikely to want to claim for the theft of a £1000 bike and so I would go for TPO. As it stands though I am getting quotes of around £50 cheaper by protecting my no claims bonus. It is still far cheaper to go TPO though so I am wondering how much difference a theft makes if I still have a hefty no claims bonus?
____________________
I am a bellend, I am a man of constant sorrow, I am a gummy bear, I am a rock.

[c-m]

I thought that you usually get your NCB reduced to 3 years, provided you have over 5 years NCB previously. This is regardless of protected NCB.

Protected NCB is useless unless you stay with the same insurer/broker combination.

[c_dug]

Might be useless but it still knocked an average of £50 off of my quotes.

Didn't know that about the knocking it down to 3 years thing
____________________
I am a bellend, I am a man of constant sorrow, I am a gummy bear, I am a rock.

[-Matt-]

I protect my no claims personally - with bikesure [adrian flux].

Fairly sure IIRC the no claims are entirely protected for the first claim, and reduced if a second claim is made within the same year, or something to that affect, may differ per company though i guess.

I'd get theft protection personally, is it really much of a difference, on my quotes i've rarely ever seen a difference between TPO and TPFT so it made it a no brainer.

Then on the car its even weirder - as comprehensive is CHEAPER than TPO and TPFT ... god knows

[c-m]

Usually you pay extra for protected no claims.

When it comes to renewal, not all insurers will accept your NCB if you have had a protected NCB accident.