Legal Cover. Necessary?

Quentin

They will only take your case on if you have a good chance of winning. Same as a claim handler.

The claim handler lawyers pay the insurer a big commission when they are given cases.

There are some claim handler lawyers who will pay a reasonable commission direct to the claimant for the business, so it might be worthwhile researching for a reputable firm that operates like this, and have their number handy should you ever need them.

bargainhunter90

Astaroth wrote: »

But what is always missed is the fact that no win no fee only will come into effect if the claim exceeds the "small claims court" limit as a solicitor is unable to claim costs in a small track case.

At the end of the day it is a judgement call, do you want to pay a fixed amount each year to avoid the risk of the pain/ hassle/ time/ cost etc of having to deal with things yourself.

the no win no fee is what you enter into so it always comes into effect unless you sign another agreement or use a dodgy claims company without going direct to a solicitor

If you go directly with a solicitor in your local area you can meet them when you need to and drop off forms, answer any of their questions or give them some giving much more confidence than an lei that might be miles away

i never pay for legal cover and had two motor claims over 5 years and got payment using a no win no fee. Its best approaching a solicitor the other way of doing it is using lei and you pay all that money and your not the client of who does all the work the insurance company is, so they would be looking at settling soon as they can and not always for the right amount

bargainhunter90

darich wrote: »

Ok..so the losing side pays costs in a no win no fee basis.
So what if my claim is for a few hundred pounds of car hire and my excess? If Astaroth is right and it's small claims court then a no win no fee solicitor won't touch it.
Meaning I need to claim my self. I need to pay my £60 odd quid (more than legal cover) provide evidence, receipts, state my case and then HOPE I win.

However, with legal protection, if I'm £50 out of pocket and have a receipt, I'd tell my insurance and THEY'D chase it for me. Would a small claims court procedure for less than £100 be worth it?

In my opinion, it's worth it. If I never make a claim then it's wasted money, but as soon as I have a claim in then that extra few pounds could save me a fortune.

A solicitor looks at recovering damages for injuries first such as whiplash or anything more, most claims are settled before court so it doesnt get allocated to a track. They can then also look at recovering your few hundred pounds of car hire and excess just depends what you Want to do

If you want legal cover just to protect yourself for £50 of car hire and not hurt yourself then go ahead with lei but guess you will need to read all that small print to be sure even thats worth paying that extra :rotfl:

Quote

darich wrote: »

I currently have two cars - a 3.0 convertible and a 2.0turbo 4wd.
My fuel costs have not increased since I bought the second car since I can only drive one at a time. My mileage had not increased therefore fuel consumption remains the same.

I would have thought that unless the OP has increased mileage or has learned how to be in two places simultaneously, and drive two vehicles at the same time, fuel costs will be similar to someone with only one vehicle.

You.









































































































My point.

lisyloo

A couple of things.

Firstly a no-win, no fee solicitor will not cover all cases.
My FIL hit a pedestrian (not the drivers fault).
His insurer paid back his excess because he had legal cover. They chose to just pay out rather than pursue the pedestrian.
You won't get a "no win no fee" solicitor to chase a £200 excess.

I personally have this policy for £12 and it coveres my motorbikes, cars and house.
I would suggest you check it out if you still want a policy.
I'm not in a posistion to offer advice, but I personlly think it's a good policy for a cracking price.

http://www.payless.me.uk/clubspecial.htm

bargainhunter90

lisyloo wrote: »

A couple of things.

Firstly a no-win, no fee solicitor will not cover all cases.
My FIL hit a pedestrian (not the drivers fault).
His insurer paid back his excess because he had legal cover. They chose to just pay out rather than pursue the pedestrian.
You won't get a "no win no fee" solicitor to chase a £200 excess.

I personally have this policy for £12 and it coveres my motorbikes, cars and house.
I would suggest you check it out if you still want a policy.
I'm not in a posistion to offer advice, but I personlly think it's a good policy for a cracking price.

http://www.payless.me.uk/clubspecial.htm

Legal cover is not guaranteed to cover all cases all small print needs to be looked at. A no win no fee solicitor will only take on cases to claim for an injury first such as whiplash as a minor example, then look at the excess and hire cover later on as Ive said above, they wouldnt ignore part of a claim if they take it on..

I couldnt find the legal cover in the website but only had a quick look

Astaroth

Dont like telling people they are wrong when they mean well but.....

Of cause a solicitor will take on a non-injury case if it is above the small track limit. Injury makes it easier to be above it as not only are they highly expensive to settle but the small track limit for injury is only £1000 -v- £5000 for non-injury which adds up to a fair amount of excess, car hire etc. Take someone who earns their living through their vehicle (eg private hire taxi) then it suddenly becomes much more likely that they go into fast track through loss of earnings claims, not through injury but by the car being off the road for a few weeks etc.

bargainhunter90 wrote: »

the no win no fee is what you enter into so it always comes into effect

But, a solicitor cannot get paid by the third party in small track case so under no win no fee (aka conditional funding) they would not get paid if they lost your case and if they won then the third party doesnt have to pay them either. Given solicitors aren't known for going to court to claim your £100 excess back out of the kindness of their hearts who do you think would pay your solicitors fee under conditional funding agreements in small claims court cases? Hence the comment that no win, no fee do not apply to small track cases

lisyloo

Legal cover is not guaranteed to cover all cases

Of course not and neither will "no win no fee" cover all cases.
For the sake of £12 I'd rather have the choice of both options especially as I cycle (without any other insurance) and ride a motorbike.
Let's get this into perspective from a money saving point of view.
I have saved £3K per annum on a mortgage before by shopping around. We are talking about £12 here.
If people want to not have it, then that's fine by me, but in terms of money saving, it's really scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

The case I was talking about did not involve any injury and was for a £120 excess only.
I agree it's not a fortune, but I was pointing out the principle that "no win no fee" will not cover all cases.
I agree that people should do due dilligence and check out small print. No arguments there.
That also applies to credit hire comtracts and no-win no-fee solicitors where sometimes there is a liability in the small print and jsut occassionally that has meant people being presented with a huge bill when they were told by the credit hire agent that they wouldn't have to pay a penny. (No I'm not scaremongering, but I believe it's better that people are aware of these things up front so they can check it out).
There are pros and cons both ways.
Legal insurance soilcitors can be really slow and drag their feet. Those getting paid can be really voiciferous on your behalf.
For the sake of little more than a tenner I'd rather have a choice esepcially when I might be laid up on in a coma and my attorney might have toa ct on my behalf.

If anyone does find anything illuminating in this particular policy
http://www.payless.me.uk/legal.pdf
either positive or negative, then I would be delighted to hear about it.

bargainhunter90

lisyloo wrote: »

If people want to not have it, then that's fine by me, but in terms of money saving, it's really scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

The case I was talking about did not involve any injury and was for a £120 excess only.
I agree it's not a fortune, but I was pointing out the principle that "no win no fee" will not cover all cases.
I agree that people should do due dilligence and check out small print. No arguments there.
That also applies to credit hire comtracts and no-win no-fee solicitors where sometimes there is a liability in the small print and jsut occassionally that has meant people being presented with a huge bill when they were told by the credit hire agent that they wouldn't have to pay a penny. (No I'm not scaremongering, but I believe it's better that people are aware of these things up front so they can check it out).
There are pros and cons both ways.
Legal insurance soilcitors can be really slow and drag their feet. Those getting paid can be really voiciferous on your behalf.
For the sake of little more than a tenner I'd rather have a choice esepcially when I might be laid up on in a coma and my attorney might have toa ct on my behalf.

If anyone does find anything illuminating in this particular policy
http://www.payless.me.uk/legal.pdf
either positive or negative, then I would be delighted to hear about it.

I agree with you except for paying for legal expenses and having the choice of both as you don't a solicitor you approach has to check into any lei and see the policy before entering into a no win no fee agreement, as that's why they have been created an alternative to legal aid for people that do not have before the event cover. Having said that a solicitor you know/trust can still carry on under a no win no fee after giving further advice on funding.

I have only posted in here to let ppl know you can make a claim for personal injury like whiplash or more serious injuries without having any legal cover and car hire can also be looked at after then, it would be hard just to have someone look at credit hire on its own without legal cover.

Legal cover on any motor policy is not a legal requirement and only an option it is scraping the barrel, in answer to the original question legal cover is not necessary but an insurance policy itself is necessary to drive a vehicle

lisyloo

I agree with you except for paying for legal expenses and having the choice of both as you don't a solicitor you approach has to check into any lei and see the policy before entering into a no win no fee agreement, as that's why they have been created an alternative to legal aid for people that do not have before the event cover. Having said that a solicitor you know/trust can still carry on under a no win no fee after giving further advice on funding.

My MIL made a personal injury claim.
The solicitor recommended that my MIL went "no win no fee" with her, rather than use the legal cover (well, there's a suprise). So they may be obliged to check but as you say, it would appear you do have the option.
If they advise you to use the insurance then clearly it MUST be the better choice, because they'd have to have a compelling reason to turn down business.

Legal cover on any motor policy is not a legal requirement

Just to add.
I am a cyclist and obviously there is no "motor" policy or equivalent.
So I like to have some form of legal insurance in case I needed to claim back loss of earnings or something like that.
I know that I would be capable of doing it myself via the small claims court etc. but if I was injured it might make life easier for myself and my family.
When you have legal cover on your home (or the standalone policy I mentioned) it usually excludes accidents when you're in a motor vehicle but does not exclude incidents as a pedestrian or cyclists.
So personally I have it for household and cycling as well as motoring.
I have on occasion used the legal advice for advice on property/consumer disputes, so I'm just saying this whole legal cover debate is not limited to motoring.

I don't have strong feelings on whether people should have it or not and I accept some of your points.
But to put it in perspective again, earlier on this year I decided to go for a BOE+0.49% mortgage rather than 5.99% fix.
That has save me £7750 PER YEAR (on current rates which admittedly are unusually low).
So one thing I would say to people, is that if you have limited time to put into money saving then go for the big stuff first and don't spend ages agonising over a £12 bill.
It's simply has to be a case of prioritising and most people should start with their mortgage/debt. Legal cover has got to be right at the bottom of a long list of things to do first.