Are legal services really worth the extra cost?

DataMiner

Renewed my car insurance today for a 15% lower price than the original renewal. However, the cost included a "legal services" addition, without which I could reduce the premium by another 10%.

Can't help thinking that this legal services element is not that necessary. I've not claimed on a car policy for over 20 years - and although I appreciate such things are there for when you need them - but what is the general consensus on this hefty additional cost?

Worth it or not?

DM

lisyloo

Surely it's not more than £30 is it? Is that what you call "hefty".

If you have a personal injury case you can easily get a "no win no fee" solicitor to take it on for you.
They won't be interested in chasing your excess.

People who used the policies say it's worth it's weight in gold.
Some people say it's a waste of money.

Personally I prefer to be covered and chose only to save money when there is no potentially significant compromise involved.
If you think your particualr policy is a rip off you could hunt round for a cheaper one (google is your friend).

As you're a "dataminer" you could also use the search facility and have a loko at all the previous answers.

You will get a range of opinions from "waste of time" to "worth it's weight in gold" but be aware that you cannot do everything via "no win no fee".
They are only interested in the cases where they can get paid (of course).

theJudge

IMHO, in life if you pay for something upfront, you get a rubbish service compared to if you pay after you've received the service. This is definitely true of insurers who try to delay/deny/defend any claim made to them. Obviously, some things you need to insure e.g. buildings because of the replacement cost and some things you're legally obliged to ensure e.g. cars. For the rest e.g. contents, travel, legal, I'd do extensive research in to how good your insurer is at handling claims before paying any premium to them. The regulatory authorities in the UK are pretty non-existent, and there's no parliamentary oversight of the FSA or it's successor - FCA - http://www.icl-ifa.co.uk/2011/03/treasury-select-committee-financial-services-authority/ due to the need to maintain the FSA's independence which was part of primary legislation set out in the Financial Services & Markets Act which set up the FSA and FOS in the first place. The Treasury Select Committee in any case has recently tried to undermine the coalition government's attempts to strengthen the consumer protection element of the FCA. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtreasy/430/430i.pdf As the FSA is managed by industry insiders, consumers can have no confidence in them and the FCA is just a re-badge maintaining the same people in senior positions. It's very much a case of buyer beware:-

FSA compiled complaints data is located here:-
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Other_publications/commentary/firm_spec/table.shtml