Legal Cover: Definitive Answer
- Thread starter Tesla
- Start date
I always get it bundled for free with a policy, when I was hit by a third party my insurance company recommended I use one of their appointed solictors, he was excellent and in fairness did a FAR better job than any insurance company could have managed, got a payout within a week.
I'm honestly not entirely sure, I could understand it if my claim wasn't being settled by the third party insurer but it was. I don't remember all the details but I think, and I could be wrong, that I'd end up paying the excess if my insurance company dealt with the third party directly so they just appointed a (bloody good) solicitor for me who dealt with absolutely everything.
by ticking that box and paying the premium, your insurer will appoint for you one of their board of claim to gain, something for nothing, no win no fee, solicitors. they also get a kick back from the solicitor for sending your work their way.
basically they ring an 0800 number for you and pass on your details.
i would be capable of calling a whiplash chaser myself should the need arise, so i dont tick the box
basically they ring an 0800 number for you and pass on your details.
i would be capable of calling a whiplash chaser myself should the need arise, so i dont tick the box
No, thats not how it works.
In buying legal protection cover you're making a contract with an uninsured loss recovery firm in anticipation of you needing uninsured losses recovering (such as repairs if third party, or your excess if Comp, injury, lost earnings etc etc) following a non fault accident.
However, there are countless uninsured loss recovery firms out there quite willing to take on your case after the event - for free.
There's a theory that if you pay for cover and say you have let's say a 50/50 accident (in other words liability isn't totally clear) - then you've got a better chance of the 'paid for' uninsured loss service having a crack at helping you out, whereas supposedly the after the event people are more likely to knock you back where liability isn't crystal clear. Theory then goes further and suggests that the paid for policy has legal fees underwritten from day one - so if the third party isn't playing ball then the paid for service is more likely to say "ok, time to go to court"...and rack up some legal fees whereas the after the event providers might not be able to underwriter legal fees to the same degree and possibly might be reluctant to issue proceedings on your behalf.
Personally I never buy legal cover, there's plenty of after the event people out there. The net cost of legal cover to these insurers/brokers is no more than £1 a policy, yet it's sold at up to 25 times this amount. Perhaps the theories shown above were created by organisations with a vested interest in pre-paid ULR cover?
However, there are countless uninsured loss recovery firms out there quite willing to take on your case after the event - for free.
There's a theory that if you pay for cover and say you have let's say a 50/50 accident (in other words liability isn't totally clear) - then you've got a better chance of the 'paid for' uninsured loss service having a crack at helping you out, whereas supposedly the after the event people are more likely to knock you back where liability isn't crystal clear. Theory then goes further and suggests that the paid for policy has legal fees underwritten from day one - so if the third party isn't playing ball then the paid for service is more likely to say "ok, time to go to court"...and rack up some legal fees whereas the after the event providers might not be able to underwriter legal fees to the same degree and possibly might be reluctant to issue proceedings on your behalf.
Personally I never buy legal cover, there's plenty of after the event people out there. The net cost of legal cover to these insurers/brokers is no more than £1 a policy, yet it's sold at up to 25 times this amount. Perhaps the theories shown above were created by organisations with a vested interest in pre-paid ULR cover?
It depends which insurer you go to.
Some will have a contract with a firm of soliciters and as such will have a set agreed rate and will cover the cost in full provding you use that firm.
Others will have a board of soliciters that you can choose from and the same will apply.
OR it can be as above, but also the insurer will say you can claim X amount per hour and use that to instruct a soliciter of your choice.
They differ from no win no fee in that if you dont have a chance in hell of winning the case or worse than 50/50 they will not take the case for the most part.
*edit*
Just seen what Merlin has put above, it differs from what I have been told about the likely hood of a case being taken.
Last edited:
so you beleive a no win no fee solicitor will take on any claim for you regardless of the circumstances? when did no win no fee solicitors start taking on claims for fun/giggles?
I had a "legal cover" insurance appointed lawyer settle for 50:50 because the 3rd party said his door was already open and I drove into it. Despite absolutely no damage to the front of my car. only from the halfway point on the wing backwards.
I will NEVER have legal cover again.
I will NEVER have legal cover again.
The main strategy, especially with the most spurious of cases is that they will raise a case against someone who will then settle out of court even if they are in the right, simply because of the fear of the additional huge legal costs.
Not just in motor accidents, but in personal injury as well.
Hence why the Goverment are trying to legislate to change how they are allowed to recover their costs.
Last edited:
oh right, in the years that i have done pi rta work for a living i have not come across that strategy before. perhaps i should pass that on to hsbc, norwich union etc.
with that strategy, do you have any idea of what %age settle a claim against them, even if theyre in the right because they fear legal costs?
with that strategy, do you have any idea of what %age settle a claim against them, even if theyre in the right because they fear legal costs?