legal protection with home insurance

tightrs

hi guys
my home insurance is up for renewal and i have noticed i pay £20 for legal protection which covers me for many things eg accidents at work , which are covered by other options ,union subs and no win no fee.
i would be interested to know others thoughts on wether this top up is worth it ?

peterg1965

I suspect insurance companies make an absolute fortune on legal cover. I have it on car insurance and home insurance so it makes you wonder if you could just have one cover for both. I suspect it is another money making venture for these companies, I for one have never used this service and I reckon I am not alone!

Astaroth

Do a search for legal protection, this question is asked many times.

Home insurance legal protection normally includes a 24/7 advice line on any legal topic - personally I think this aspect is worth the dues on its own as I would much rather be able to call a solicitor at any time rather than having to wait for the telephone enquiry slot at my local CAB or such to then only talk to an advisor with a manual.

tightrs

Astaroth wrote:

Do a search for legal protection, this question is asked many times.

Home insurance legal protection normally includes a 24/7 advice line on any legal topic - personally I think this aspect is worth the dues on its own as I would much rather be able to call a solicitor at any time rather than having to wait for the telephone enquiry slot at my local CAB or such to then only talk to an advisor with a manual.

this legal advice line is included free with my mortgage and i believe my motor insurance.

Astaroth

It normally isnt provided with motor (though I am sure there are exceptions) - it is the way they get you to have both.... much more likely to claim on the motor LE cover but no helpline etc for non-motoring help.... less likely to claim on home LE but helpline and no cover for motoring incidents.

I dont know if some mortgage providers give LE cover or not but it is always worth checking the level of cover. I think that the £20 isnt bad value for money personally - I know I got an offer of a personal stand alone product that covered all LE for home and motor but it was over £120 per year

courtjester

Personally, I always delete these legal protection extensions - I find it rather offensive that it is always included in my renewal premium without asking me first if I want such cover - the assumption of course is that people won't notice the additional charge and all the renewal forms include a total with no breakdown that you are obliged to amend.

I am also suspicious of the so-called 'benefits' on offer - it is sold as if you get free legal advice and protection whatever the situation, but closer inspection reveals that you only get protection where the legal insurers considers the case worthy of defending - I notice in my latest renewal notice for my car that the 'free car hire' in the event of accident has an endorsement in fine print stating something to the effect of "if third party at fault" - well that's just stating one of the things you can claim against a thrid party if they are at fault anyway, even if you don't have the 'protection'.

I think the usefulness of these policies can be regarded much in the same was as extended warranties and the way they are foisted on unsuspecting car owners buried in the documentation is little more professional.

Astaroth

It would be pursued not defended.

It isnt surprising that this clause exist otherwise insurers would have to pay out millions in solicitor costs pursuing claims no one in their right mind would think would win - classic one I remember from my claims days was someone was given a free (at no cost to them at all, not even postage) TV and was told it was a model ABCDE but when the person giving it to them turned up it was a model ABCDF and they wanted to sue the person £1000 for miss representation of the item and the full cost it was going to be for them to now go out and buy a ABCDE. If they didnt have the reasonable chance of success clause then they would have had to paid solicitors to pursue it as far as the customer wanted which simply means higher premiums for everyone.

Being a claims person I dont take LE cover on my motor as I am more than comfortable handling any claims on my own behalf but think that it on the home insurance is a good investment as I know I dont know enough about employment law, contract law etc

courtjester

Fair enough, I appreciate why the insurers won't offer cover to pursue unwarranted claims, but at the end of the day where is the value?

If you have a justifiable claim, you can get a solicitor to pursue it for you (or as you say pursue it yourself if you are comfortable with the issues) and generally you will get any legal costs negotiated in the settlement. So really what you are paying for with 'legal protection' is not the protection itself (which the law already gives you), but simply the comfort of phoning a helpline.

As with many things to do with insurance, it is the way these policies are (mis-) marketed that I object to, not the product itself. They imply you are getting something you are not.

The worst (here goes the rant) are the investment products...

"our ISA rates are best cos they've gone up 200% over the last 5 years....!!!" - followed by the fine print so small you need a miccroscope: "past performance is not an indicator of future performance".

Don't get me started:

"save up to 40% on your motor insurance by switching to... " and "quote me stupid", whereas the reality for 95% of people is that the saving might amount to 5% or less - or "sorry, our offer does'nt cover non-standard vehicles" - like a grey one....

Astaroth

A solicitor only gets paid by the other party in cases that are above the small track (ie cases over £5000 of non-injury or over £1000 injury). A lot of non-injury claims do fall under the small track of the county court in which case you are highly unlikely to get any form of legal representation unless you are willing to pay for it yourself - of cause you can represent yourself but then there is the old adaged "a solicitor that represents himself has a fool for a client"

The other consideration of cause is the fact that whilst they say that they will only cover cases where they believe there is a reasonable chance of success that doesnt mean that every case does succeed. So if you had gone down the "pay for it yourself route"/ negotiate a special rate with your own solicitor you would not only have to pay your solicitors fees but if it is above small track case then also pay the third party's solicitors fees which will not be a "specially negotiated rate" - believe me, insurance company solicitors do not come cheap.

At the end of the day it is an insurance policy and so comes down to your appetite for risk.

courtjester

Agreed.

However, on the subject of costs, most cases never go to court small or otherwise and are negotiated as far as the value of the claim or damages. In such cases, it is common to ask for solicitors fees to be 'included' in the settlement, in order to reach a 'deal' even though as you rightly say, the costs are not technically payable and would not be awarded at court.

This is particularly so where the facts and liability are clear and in the event of not reaching a deal the defendant's insurers are going to incur considerable extra expense, if they let things escalate up to court.

DavidHM

This is particularly so where the facts and liability are clear and in the event of not reaching a deal the defendant's insurers are going to incur considerable extra expense, if they let things escalate up to court.

Or they could simply leave it undefended as long as the amount in issue was under £5k and let the other side be responsible for their own costs. If liability and quantum are not in dispute, they'd have nothing to lose and anyway, if it's small claims it can be handled mainly by a paralegal on £18k a year (for 50+ cases) and the client will be quite happy.

Legal expenses insurance is worthwhile if you want:

- accessibility - you know your legal expenses insurer deals with, say, consumer law. You may not know of a solicitor who does - your local firm may specialise in just crime or just conveyancing, etc.

- informality - solicitors might have to offer only a "Rolls Royce" service with extensive advice, in order to protect themselves from missing a possibility, however remote;

- legal certainty - because you can approach them in relatively trivial situations and know where you stand;

- an incentive for a claim to be pursued on your behalf claim when you would otherwise have no recourse, e.g., against a driver at fault when you only have third party insurance cover;

- reduced risk of any legal costs (even if it's not a major risk to start with).

There are other ways of getting that service (up to and including doing your own law degree) and if you're being particularly tight with money then I wouldn't say it's something you can't live without.

However, it is a worthwhile product and not something where the costs and the benefits bear no obvious relation to one another.