I don't disagree with John Morris's "scum" sentiments (Letters, February 27) but I do disagree with his comment that, because of his son's impecuniosity, the third party, fire and theft insurance policy he chose on cost grounds against a comprehensive policy (and, these days, in terms of percentage, there is frequently not a great deal of difference) left him without cover.
Since a third party, fire and theft policy gives cover in respect of loss or damage as a result of theft, almost all the losses described are covered under the policy, with the exception of the dashboard, and even then only if it was an act of vandalism and not damaged while in the process of the radio being stolen.
The only reason for this cover not being in force would be if, for whatever reason, the policy terms and conditions were not being complied with, in which case the level of cover purchased would be irrelevant.
If Mr Morris's son would like to contact his insurers, he will receive specific advice relevant to his own individual cover and circumstances.
-Ian Ratcliffe, High Street, Handcross
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article