Car legal cover - how to get it cheaper?

InsideInsurance wrote: »

You need to read the terms and conditions.
The "catch" with free cover is often that there is a minimum claim value, often tied to the Small Track case limit but some are more generous and so if your claim falls below this they wont assist. Similarly a lot of their service are not applicable in split liability situations.

There is no "catch" with Free Motor Legal. The members are treated in exactly the same manner they would do if they had a paid for policy. There is no minimum claim value criteria that applies and many people with car park dings where liability has been contested have been assisted with making a recovery of their losses, some of which amounted to £500 or less.

The terms on Free Motor Legal are that so long as the claim has "reasonable prospects of success" the member will be assisted with the provision of legal services. "Reasonable Prospects of Success" are deemed to be a 51% or greater prospect of making a recovery of losses. Not 51% or more on liability, but of actually making a financial recovery. For example, someone who is deemed to be 2/3 at fault for a collision would still receive advice & assistance. Yes they are not going to get a credit hire car etc, but they will get a full ULR service and, if applicable, an injury claim pursued.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Secondly they continually talk about non-fault accidents. Legal expenses insurance from your Motor provider will also provide assistance in the case of split liability situation.

Free Motor Legal assist their members when the case is a split liability situation. Recently a member came to us after he had used his own fully comp insurance cover and incurred his excess. It was a roundabout collision where he was exiting in the right lane and the other party in the lane to his left. When he exited, his vehicle was hit on the passenger side rear 1/4. The other party claimed he cut her up, he alleged she was intending to continue around and was in the wrong lane. Typical roundabout dispute. 50/50 was offered by third party insurers, this was rejected and county court proceedings issued by the appointed solicitor. The third party then settled the claim in full without the matter needing to proceed to a hearing. The sum claimed was £250 excess only. The member did not contact until after he had already incurred his excess.

Quentin wrote: »

Another catch with the "free" motorlegalcover is that normally you have the right to have your car repaired at your choice of repairer.


However if you use their "service" to deal with your claim then you must give up that right and have your repairs carried out by their choice of repairer.

This is correct, although something that may well soon change. The reason for stipulating the repairer is that often when somebody then goes to their own repairer, they will be grabbed by the guy behind the desk and most likely persuaded to use another provider of hire and ULR & PI services and the claim becomes completely fragmented and duplicated.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

You still never answered my question on the last discussion on LE of who's there to help the claimant with small track level non-PI losses in a definite split liability accident

I believe this issue may have been answered above.

In summary, there is no catch with the Free Motor Legal offering as an alternative to buying an actual legal expenses policy. The membership operates by exactly the same principles in that if there are reasonable prospects of success, the member will be assisted.

A replacement hire car etc may not always be possible, but this is the same as the paid for policies.

Members will receive a full ULR service including their case being litigated even when the financial value of their claim is small and liability is disputed, subject to there being reasonable prospects of success (deemed to be 51% or greater chance of recovering damages).

If injury is pursued, the appointed solicitor acts under a no win no fee arrangement with a 0% success fee, so no deductions are taken from the client's damages at all.

A legal protection policy is not needed because since April 2013, a Claimant who is represented under a no win no fee agreement, in the event that the case is litigated and the Claimant loses their case at court, they still are not liable to pay their opponent's costs due to the protection they are given in law by Qualified One-way Costs Shifting. The only exception would be in the event a Part 36 offer was not beaten or a claim was found to be fraudulent or fundamentally dishonest.

A legal protection policy would not indemnify if a claim was found to be fraudulent and in the event a Part 36 offer was made yet the Claim was to continue to a hearing, an ATE policy can be taken out with a self-insured premium to protect any adverse costs risks.

The only "real world" difference between the service a member at FML gets and what somebody with a £30 annual policy gets is that the FML membership only will deal with claims arising in England, Scotland & Wales.