Home Insurance..Legal Protection ?

zogg

Time to renew once more.

Now, I understand taking legal protection for a motor policy.

Why would I take legal protection for buildings and contents policy ? (even though we have for the past 2 years !!!!!)

In what circumstances might this additional premium serve its purpose ?

Thanks

InsideInsurance

1) Legal Expenses on home insurance normally gives you a 24/7 advice line on any legal issue

2) Covers claims (in some cases defending as well as pursuing) on topics such as employment law, contract law, property law as well as trips and falls etc. So if you felt that you were a victim of constructive dismissal the insurance would cover an employment tribunial and representation to sue your former employers (assuming they think there is a reasonable chance of success)

Or if you bought a TV that broke 2 months after the warranty expired and you wanted to claim against the retailer under the Sales of Goods Act then again they could cover the costs

zogg

InsideInsurance wrote: »

1) Legal Expenses on home insurance normally gives you a 24/7 advice line on any legal issue

2) Covers claims (in some cases defending as well as pursuing) on topics such as employment law, contract law, property law as well as trips and falls etc. So if you felt that you were a victim of constructive dismissal the insurance would cover an employment tribunial and representation to sue your former employers (assuming they think there is a reasonable chance of success)

Or if you bought a TV that broke 2 months after the warranty expired and you wanted to claim against the retailer under the Sales of Goods Act then again they could cover the costs

We are both retired and live 1 mile away from nearest neighbour with 7 acres of ground so we don't have neighbour problems.

Is the insurance worth taking ( about £25 pa ) ?

Thanks for quick reply.

InsideInsurance

Only you can answer that.

Personally I have found the legal advice line to be useful in the past but arguably you could try and get hold of the Citizens Advice Beaurau instead.

No win - no fee lawyers could pick up the big ticket legal disputes in many cases when you are the claimant. That just leaves the small cases (eg the TV example) or defence work uncovered.

lisyloo

We are both retired and live 1 mile away from nearest neighbour with 7 acres of ground so we don't have neighbour problems.

What if a delivery driver trips on your ground and wants to sue you?
What if you are investingated by the inland revenue?
What if you want to defend a motoring prosecution etc. etc. etc. (Note: check the cover on YOUR policy these are examples only).

"No win no fee" will cover some things where there is another side to pick up the fees.
Where there is not then you would have to pay for a solicitor.

The chances of something happening (like a delivery driver suing you) are fairly small but the cost of a legal defence could be high, so it's up to you. Personally I prefer to have it and I personally believe there are more cases that would NOT be covered by "no win no fee" arrangmements on home rather than motor.

My opinion is also that there are probably much greater savings to made elsewhere in your budget.
For this you save circa £25 but risk being without cover.
You could probably switch your gas/electric and save more with NO sacrifice.
To me money saving is not about sacrifice, it's about getting the same things but cheaper i.e. better value.

But at the end of the day it's personal choice.

zogg

Both replies make fair points.

For 50p per week it is really not worth not taking it !!

Thanks to you both.

InsideInsurance

lisyloo wrote: »

What if a delivery driver trips on your ground and wants to sue you?
What if you are investingated by the inland revenue?
What if you want to defend a motoring prosecution etc. etc. etc. (Note: check the cover on YOUR policy these are examples only).

The first would be covered by your building insurance's public liability section.

The rest are potential sections of cover under legal expenses cover.

lisyloo

The first would be covered by your building insurance's public liability section.

Agreed.
If the insurance refused to pay out and the driver took you (personally) to court then would you need the legal cover for a defence? or does the buildings insurance provide a defence as they are not paying out on the claim?

TSx

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The first would be covered by your building insurance's public liability section.

The rest are potential sections of cover under legal expenses cover.

Genuine question, but would a slip on the property always come under buildings liability, or would it sometimes come under contents liability?

eg if you as occupier of the property ommited to clear ice from a pathway and someone slipped, wouldn't that come under the liability section on your contents policy?

Just curious, I deal occasionally with liability cases but never in great detail and I remember being told in training that the majority of liability cases fall under the contents section of cover.

InsideInsurance

Buildings liability cover you as the owner of the property. Contents liability covers you as an individual.

It is arguable which it would come under as many are in the grey area, deicing I suspect would be that of you as a building owner. If the kids covered the path with marbles you could possibly argue thats you as a parent more than you as a building owner and thus contents.

Lisy - given the home insurance and the home legal expenses cover is linked the likelihood is that if the home insurance declined to provide cover that the Legal Expenses insurance would also decline for the same reason. Given Legal Expenses require a reasonable prospect of success where as home insurance doesnt it is more likely you would get cover for defence costs in that example from the home than LE. I guess there could be examples where home declines but LE doesnt but I think they'd be fairly rare.