Category: Motor · Reviewed by Simon Temme, Account Executive · Last reviewed 2026-06-05
Third party fire and theft (TPFT) is the intermediate level of UK motor cover: it provides the third-party liability cover required by statute together with indemnity for loss of or damage to the insured vehicle caused by fire or theft, but does not pay for accidental damage to the insured vehicle.
Category: Motor Also known as: TPFT, third party fire & theft motor insurance First codified: Developed by the UK motor market in the early 20th century; statutory third-party basis now Road Traffic Act 1988 Related legislation: Road Traffic Act 1988; Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2000 Apex Wiki link: /wiki/third-party-fire-and-theft/
Third party fire and theft (TPFT) is a level of UK motor insurance that sits between third party only and comprehensive motor insurance. It provides, as a minimum, the third-party cover required by section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [1], extended by two additional perils in respect of the insured vehicle: damage caused by fire (including arson and self-ignition), and loss of the insured vehicle by theft or attempted theft.
TPFT does not cover accidental collision damage to the insured vehicle, vandalism (where not amounting to attempted theft or arson), damage caused by uninsured third parties (beyond what the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme provides) or other own-damage perils. In that respect TPFT is materially narrower than comprehensive cover and significantly wider than pure third-party cover.
The product is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority under the Insurance: Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS) and is sold subject to the same conduct rules as other retail motor insurance, including the demands-and-needs analysis in ICOBS 5 and the renewal disclosure rules in ICOBS 6A [2].
TPFT is the smaller of the three principal UK retail motor tiers by market share. Historically, the rationale for buying TPFT rather than comprehensive cover was lower premium, but as insurer pricing has tightened the differential has narrowed and TPFT is increasingly bought only where the insured vehicle’s residual value would not justify the additional accidental-damage premium.
The statutory third-party element of TPFT derives from Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 143 requires every user of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place to have in force a policy of insurance against third-party risks; section 145 specifies the requirements of that policy [1]. The minimum monetary cover is set by the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/726): unlimited cover for death and personal injury and at least £1.2 million for property damage [3].
The ‘fire’ and ‘theft’ elements have no statutory underpinning; they are contractual extensions developed by the UK motor insurance market. Their scope is defined by the policy wording. The Insurance Act 2015 imposes the duty of fair presentation in respect of non-consumer policies [4]; for consumer motor policies the duty is governed by the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, which replaces the common-law duty of utmost good faith with a duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation [5].
Theft is interpreted with reference to its statutory meaning under the Theft Act 1968 (in particular section 1, dishonest appropriation with intent permanently to deprive), although many policies extend cover to attempted theft, theft of parts and unauthorised taking and driving away without consent under the Theft Act 1968, section 12. Fire is typically defined to include ignition by accidental, electrical or arson causes, but to exclude fire caused by mechanical or electrical breakdown of the vehicle itself unless that breakdown leads to ignition.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) decides disputes between consumers and insurers under DISP in the FCA Handbook; numerous FOS decisions on TPFT disputes interpret what constitutes ‘theft’ (in particular where keys have been left in the vehicle) and ‘fire’ (in particular self-ignition versus mechanical-failure exclusions) [6].
A TPFT policy responds in three principal scenarios.
First, the insured is at fault in a collision that damages a third-party vehicle and injures a third-party occupant. The insurer pays the third party’s claim under the statutory third-party cover; the insured bears the cost of repair or replacement of their own vehicle.
Second, the insured vehicle is stolen. The insurer pays the insured the market value of the vehicle at the time of the theft, less the compulsory excess and any voluntary excess. Most modern wordings require evidence of forced entry or hot-wiring; a ‘keys-in-car’ theft is commonly excluded or subject to higher excesses. Where the vehicle is recovered before settlement, the insurer pays repair costs subject to the same excesses.
Third, the insured vehicle is damaged by fire. The insurer pays repair costs or, if the vehicle is a write-off, the pre-loss market value, subject to excesses. Where the cause is mechanical or electrical breakdown of the vehicle and there is no consequent fire damage to other parts, the claim is normally declined.
Excluded perils typically include collision damage, vandalism (other than arson), water damage, theft of personal possessions other than fitted equipment, and damage caused while the vehicle is being used outside the policy’s class of use. The no claims discount is affected by theft and fire claims in the same way as by collision claims.
For brokers, ICOBS 5 requires identifying the client’s demands and needs; where the insured holds a vehicle of significant value, the broker should explore whether comprehensive cover is more appropriate [2].
TPFT wordings vary in their treatment of:
Specialist TPFT wordings exist for classic vehicles (where comprehensive cover would require an agreed-value rating impractical for an older or seasonally used vehicle) and for fleet management of low-value pool vehicles.
An illustrative example: a small business buys a £2,000 second-hand light van for occasional collection of small parts. Because the van is rarely used and is parked overnight in a locked yard, the owner takes out TPFT cover with a £300 excess.
After six months the van is stolen overnight from outside an employee’s home, where it had been parked because the yard was undergoing resurfacing. There is no sign of forced entry. The insurer investigates and concludes that the van was taken using keys removed from a key safe at the employee’s home. The wording excludes theft following the removal of keys from an insecure key safe. The claim is declined.
In a separate incident the van suffers an engine fire caused by faulty wiring while parked, completely destroying the vehicle. The insurer pays the pre-loss market value of £1,800, less the £300 excess. Figures are illustrative only.
This entry is part of the Apex Insurance Wiki. Last reviewed by Matt Bartlett on 2026-06-05. Next review: 2026-12-05.
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FRN 724952. Registered in England and Wales, Companies House 07014570. This entry provides general information about UK insurance concepts and is not regulated advice. Consult your insurance broker on your specific position.
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote