is legal cover for car insurance worth it?

rs65

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

If there is a refusal to provide services and a complaint in-house does not resolve to your satisfaction, then a complaint to the legal ombudsman is made. They have the power to force the membership service or their appointed representatives to perform a service if they feel you have been unfairly treated. So the same as what would happen if you felt your insurer was not adhering to policy terms or not treating you fairly.

Insurance cover usually comes with FSCS protection in the event of an insurer being unable to meet their obligations - do you have similar?

Quentin

rs65 wrote: »

Insurance cover usually comes with FSCS protection in the event of an insurer being unable to meet their obligations - do you have similar?

Would the members of the "free to join membership organisation" be concerned to discover their organisation had £387 in the bank and a net worth of minus £10813 when last filing their accounts?

lisyloo

Quentin wrote: »

Would the members of the "free to join membership organisation" be concerned to discover their organisation had £387 in the bank and a net worth of minus £10813 when last filing their accounts?

I personally wouldn't have a knee jerk reaction to the figures, because many companies/individuals account according to tax rules and wealthy people are the most likely to benefit from such tax avoidance measure.


However it does raise the important point about what happens when a free company goes bust vs an insurer - which is highly unlikely if you're tied to a major insurer.

OnanTheBarbarian

Quentin wrote: »

But your membership ts + cs state that although there is no minimum amount members need to claim for, you can drop a claim (by giving an unspecified period of notice) and withdraw your services if you consider the costs involved outweigh the value the claim!

(Which is a good reason to pay for a "proper" insurance company backed policy if you are worried about claiming back your small uninsured losses, rather that your free policy that does have a way out set out in its conditions and so guarantees nothing!)

Quentin, you really must forward your invoice for your consultancy services along with RS65.

I feel the example you explore there is a little extreme/ sensationalised. The purpose of such a clause is to say that legal proceedings would not be issued incurring court fees that may total hundreds for say a taxi fare of £4.00 - it is all about proportionality. The same exact issue would arise with an underwritten product and I defy you to say otherwise and if you maintained such an argument I would say you genuinely have no day to day experience of how the motor LEI & ULR industry actually works. - nothing personal, just an observation.

Be as it may, as has happened in the past due to critique and debate on this forum, the T&C will be amended to remove the clause you feel makes this service wholly inappropriate.

Such a clause has never needed to be relied upon anyway as when you get down to it, motor LEI policies are used 99.9% of the time to provide uninsured loss recovery services and referral for injury and hire services without charge to the policyholder and at the risk of the service providers engaged. The same exact provision of services that the free service provider arranges.

I will comment separately to RS65's posts

Quentin

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Quentin, you really must forward your invoice for your consultancy services...., as has happened in the past due to critique and debate on this forum, the T&C will be amended to remove the clause.....

You frequently respond like this when the shortcomings of your offering are exposed. (Where is the "debate" - the differences between your offering and proper cover is regularly highlighted whenever the subject is raised)


(Though in the past your "amendments" to your ts + cs after you have been "caught out" by them being highlighted have proved to be smoke and mirrors. See:https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5173542 )


Why would you have TS + CS set up in the first place that are to the detriment of your members that you so readily and seemingly regularly "remove/revise/update/clarify" when embarrassed when they get pointed out on this well read forum?


I don't want paying, (my motives are altruistic). But you could make a charity donation in lieu of the free consultancy service you get here.

OnanTheBarbarian

rs65 wrote: »

Do you provide free legal advice for motoring prosecutions? Do you provide any motoring prosecution assistance for offences committed in Scotland?

We do, via a separate service provider, as set out within the T&C (which you have obviously read in order to make a specific question about Scottish cases), provide free motor prosecution defence assistance by way of a free assessment of any motoring offence charge to determine if a valid defence exists. This however only applies to England & Wales offences currently, a solution is being explored for Scottish cases.

If a defence exists then further charges may apply for the engagement of services, which are arranged by the individual on a one to one basis.

The premise here is that the vast majority of motoring offence prosecutions brought, due to the way the police & CPS have to vet the probability of securing a conviction before bringing the charges/ issuing the summons, most of the prosecutions commenced are cases where there often is no defence to the case/ unlikely to result in an acquittal, mainly only mitigation.

Most LEI policies do not cater for providing advocacy services to provide mitigation only and many will only provide assistance if there is a genuine risk of loss of licence. Also, the frequency by which people who have a full LEI policy which covers prosecution defence actually use the product is incredibly low.

So the assessment service we are able to provide free of charge assists most people in making a determination if there is any point trying to defend the charges (*which often there is no point defending/ lack of prospect of successfully defending).

A solution for Scotland does not yet exist, but is being explored and will be incorporated once available.

I understand this does not fully mirror a full blown underwritten product for this area and no doubt you and others who have been vocal and critical will sit back, satisfied with your arms folded, that another bullet has been fired into this upstart free service which you consider is the work of lucifer himself.

However, as explained, this is a free alternative to motor legal expenses insurance, providing the vast majority of functions that the major insurers make a charge for and also providing the most commonly used services people call upon from these policies. Sure we cannot provide every sinew of service the underwritten products do, but the real world difference in the services people get from a free service compared to the underwritten offerings are pretty small. The shortfalls I can see are:

1- No assistance beyond England, Scotland & Wales - this caters for the bulk of British motorists who do not drive their cars into mainland Europe & beyond

2- No motor prosecution assistance for motoring offences in Scotland - this may be rectified in the future

3- A risk that if the organisation became insolvent the members would have to then seek a standalone legal expenses policy from the open market.

Otherwise, I can't see where the day to day differences arise for the average motorist. If you feel more comfortable having a branded insurance product behind you then fair enough. There is a large and competitive marketplace of insured products from both the major insurers & brokers as well as smaller standalone retailers, but in the real world, the average punter involved in a non-fault road accident in the UK would not notice a difference in the service received if they had spent £30 with say Aviva or enlisted as a free member of an alternative provider.

Also, forget not the many people who just avoid taking any legal cover out to save on premiums but also don't realise there are several free providers out there.

There are no shortage of threads on this forum from people asking for advice after a bump who have no legal cover. Surely their needs are more than met by having a range of services for free which would not be available to them by having no before the event solution in place - such as no win no fee lawyers gobbling up 25% of their compensation from injuries and lost earnings, or having nobody to just recover an excess for them.

There is a range of products and providers out there that are right for everyone.

This is money saving site right?

Thank you gentlemen, as you were.

OnanTheBarbarian

Quentin wrote: »

I don't want paying, (my motives are altruistic). But you could make a charity donation in lieu of the free consultancy service you get here.

Happy to make a donation to a charity of your choosing or the choosing of forum posters.

The aim has always been to help people without a need to charge and not act in any sharp manner or stiff people. Criticisms duly noted, accepted and acted upon.

PS Quentin, your mailbox is full

Quentin

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

....The aim has always been to help people without a need to charge and not act in any sharp manner or stiff people. Criticisms duly noted, accepted and acted upon.

Your aim in coming here under your various alter egos does come across as you using MSE for free advertising whenever anyone raises the topic of legal cover, and pushing the no self promotion rule you told us you gladly accepted in return for getting your posting privileges reinstated beyond the limit!

Quentin

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

.... The shortfalls I can see are:

1- No assistance beyond England, Scotland & Wales - this caters for the bulk of British motorists who do not drive their cars into mainland Europe & beyond

2- No motor prosecution assistance for motoring offences in Scotland - this may be rectified in the future

3- A risk that if the organisation became insolvent the members would have to then seek a standalone legal expenses policy from the open market......
.

As far as 3 goes, how would your solution help any of your members being assisted at the time the organisation went bust?

OnanTheBarbarian

Quentin wrote: »

As far as 3 goes, how would your solution help any of your members being assisted at the time the organisation went bust?

If they were already being assisted at the time of any demise, they would already be in the hands of our service providers (solicitors , hire co etc) and given there is no policy to claim against as the lawyers deal no win no fee etc, there would be no detriment to anybody who already had a claim ongoing. The claims would simply continue to their natural conclusion and no detriment to the member.

All of the services are simply outsourced, the service just acts as a hub to invoke the services of whatever provider the member needs, the same as what an LEI provider does (takes a report of a claim and passes the components of the claim to the appropriate service providers)