Calling Customers of DAS UK Legal Expenses Insurance

antrobus

sbk1 wrote: »

....

DAS do not honour their own terms and conditions, as a matter of course. Customers find it really hard to hold them to account.

...

Unhappy customers can make a complaint.
https://www.das.co.uk/contact-us/complaints

If unhappy with the outcome, they can take it to FOS.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/

sbk1

I apologise for the confusion, it was late when I posted a reply.

In your examples of where they paid out, did they recoup those costs?

Is the Civil JC report available online?

Whilst I'd like to ensure the facts are correct, there is also a case of creative accounting KPMG are experts.

antrobus

sbk1 wrote: »

I apologise for the confusion, it was late when I posted a reply.

In your examples of where they paid out, did they recoup those costs?

Is the Civil JC report available online?.

Try

https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/cjc-publish-report-on-before-the-event-legal-expenses-insurance/

sbk1 wrote: »

Whilst I'd like to ensure the facts are correct, there is also a case of creative accounting KPMG are experts.

KPMG are experts in not spotting 'creative accounting'.

In any event, auditors audit, not account.

PrivateClients

In both cases a significant proportion of the costs were ordered against the loser so could be recovered. The lease case featured a rejected settlement offer, and the rejection of that offer was seen as unreasonable so the recoverable costs were reduced. But I'm sure in both they only had costs orders for about 60%-70% of total costs.

Also, they had costs orders but I don't know whether the insurers ultimately managed to recover those costs from the other parties, just that they had the order to do so. I imagine they would have, as both losers were property owners, but for all I know they are still arguing with the opposition legal insurance providers.

Like most brokers, once our client has their payout we tend not to be overly concerned about insurer recoveries. Clients always are but it really doesn't make a lot of difference to the industry sector I am in with regards to future premiums. A lot of clients just see this as justice though (there's a lady on here with a fire claim from her elderly neighbours property if you want to see what I mean.)

This should be the link to the CJC report if it lets me post:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/cjc-bte-report.pdf

The FCA has looked at the "add-on" industry and acknowledge loss ratio as being an indicator of product value. In their 2014 report the FCA stated (when comparing personal accident and GAP insurance which have loss ratios of 10%) that:

"For comparison, the average net loss ratio across all personal insurance lines (including motor, household and other categories) for the 2012 regulatory returns was 64% (with 53% for household and 80% for motor)."

The loss ratio for DAS then seems an indicator of a better value product.

All those figures should be approached with caution though. The high (relative) distribution costs of legal expenses often mean that it is bad value. If consumers knew they were paying £30 for a product with a "true" value of £6-£7 they probably wouldn't expect a lot.

I suppose the point is that, even with an insurer like DAS, there are a range of covers to be offered and differing levels of cover can mean one customer has a good outcome and another a poor outcome.

I honestly think that both the FCA, the Courts, and the SRA have looked into this industry and feel that there is nothing explicitly wrong with it.

Again, I'd say I'd like to hear your own experience and why it is that you are unhappy with them. I often think that campaigns on here aren't really going to go anywhere (there's a guy looking to shut down TIF for travel insurance and believes this will happen any day now.)

But a lot of people on here actually like to help individuals and can suggest arguments that can be used in insurer complaints and with the ombudsman. I'm honestly normally one of them - I'm a broker not an insurer remember.

sbk1

Thank you for the link, it worked. The working group producing it are mostly lawyers working with LEI's or the insurers. They paint a picture certainly, but why are no consumers represented?

Value and expectations are subjective. The bottom line is the actual contract, does it deliver what it is supposed to?

Not sure what you mean by differing levels of cover affect outcomes. It's like saying you'll only get a car if you buy a Rolls. When you should get the car you buy whether that is a Lada or a Rolls.

Do you sell LEI's? If so what commission do you make on each policy?

The same organisations didn't see anything explicitly wrong with PPI until it became the biggest scandal against consumers in recent history.

My post doesn't constitute a campaign, I asked for people's experience, including positive ones. But yes this company is being scrutinised. It's practises in my experience are among the worst encountered. Do I need help, not other than the requested information. But thank you anyway.

sbk1

antrobus wrote: »

Unhappy customers can make a complaint.
https://www.das.co.uk/contact-us/complaints

If unhappy with the outcome, they can take it to FOS.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/

They also have the option of Independent Arbitration. Which DAS refuse to acknowledge.

DAS prefer the FOS a far better bet, for them.

PrivateClients

My apologies. When you said "We are gathering evidence in order to change the law. The public is being blatantly conned and action needs to be taken urgently.." it led me to assume that you were acting collectively with others to pressure Government bodies into bringing about a change in the law. I interpreted that as a campaign.

The reason I talk about outcomes from different products is because DAS offer a multitude of different products and the covers vary greatly. You give the example of a Rolls Royce and a Lada but this is exactly how insurance works. Look at a Hiscox home insurance policy written on an "all risks" basis compared to an off the shelf "specified perils" policy. The you'll see exactly why Hiscox claims are more likely to be paid. It's not that other insurers have necessarily breached their contract just that their contract is not as broad, and people don't appreciate it when they have a claim declined. That often leads to accusations of mis-selling that are often unjustified.

I think you don't fully appreciate the whole PPI story either (which surely is the example of mis-selling which you feel LEI must eclipse.) The key questions will often be around who sold the product and why it was sold to the consumer if it was unsuitable for their needs. It certainly was with regards to PPI.

Again, I think behind your issue is that you are unhappy with your own claim outcome. Most likely that is either a policy coverage issue or a customer service issue. With only a tiny minority of people buying a DAS policy direct from the insurer, it's unlikely to be the mis-selling scandal you believe it to be. Remember, PPI was being sold by every man and his dog, often not by insurance professionals (although many insurance companies and brokers certainly did mis-sell PPI,) and generally the claims were against those distributing the policies.

With an unadvised sale, as most LEI policies are these days, the responsibility for the distributor of LEI to assess a customer's demands and needs is greatly diminished. Most provide a pre printed generic statement of demands and needs and that is all they need to do, as you then decide if the policy is suitable for your needs. The advice has largely gone from the retail consumer market so mis-selling should be reduced in future sales of this type.

For myself, we rarely work on commission these days for direct clients as we prefer to charge fees for broking services. Where we wholesale for another broker we more regularly work on commission, and 25 - 30% of premium before tax would be typical (and that would apply to legal as well as core coverages.) On wholesale business we'd split that brokerage 50/50 with the retail broker, although they could charge a fee to their client and we would not know about that as we do not deal directly with the clients.

As I say, I believe that you are unhappy with an outcome in your own case. You have sought out other opinions of DAS because you believe that you can gather enough evidence to somehow bring an end to what you see as unfair business practises. I feel that you believe even though your claim has not been successful with DAS, you can ensure justice prevails. Or you might feel that nobody should have to go through what you went through and you are championing the cause of other consumers.

The point is you've produced no evidence, even anecdotally, to support your claims that they have acted unfairly in your case or in any others. And the facts you tried to present were not what you thought at all, and did not support your position.

I'm generally trying to be helpful here but so I will give you the same advice I would give to my clients in the same position, even though you may not want it.

1. Focus on your own issue and try to get your claim paid. Work to establish the validity of any insurers justification for denying a claim.

2. Follow any internal complaints route to its conclusion.

3. If eligible, approach the FOS.

OR

4. Seek an independent barrister's opinion ( a QC's opinion if the complexity and size of the claim warrants this) as to the validity of your position. An insurer may reconsider on the basis of a well reasoned legal opinion, or a barrister may well tell you that you case is weak and you can save any time or further effort.

All I was getting at is that maybe there were people on this forum who, with the full facts, could give you some advice as to whether it is even worth approaching a barrister for an opinion, or whether your claim is dead in the water.

I know you say you don't need any help but you have approached this forum, and there are many members with demonstrably greater insurance expertise than you have.

I genuinely mean it when I say that myself and others would be happy to give their opinion on the particulars of your own case but hyperbole and rhetoric will only make you feel good for a little vent, but won't actually resolve your issue with DAS or whoever sold you the policy.

I never like to see my own clients disappointed with a claim outcome, and I earnestly wiss you the best of luck with your endeavours.

antrobus

sbk1 wrote: »

They also have the option of Independent Arbitration. .....

Not really. You can't force someone to accept your version of ADR.

sbk1 wrote: »

Which DAS refuse to acknowledge. .

Understandable.

sbk1 wrote: »

DAS prefer the FOS a far better bet, for them.

I don't see why. The FOS "encourage fairness in financial services" and can force companies to do stuff.

antrobus

sbk1 wrote: »

... I asked for people's experience, including positive ones.

But haven't provided your own?

sbk1 wrote: »

.
But yes this company is being scrutinised. ....

By whom?

sbk1

''Not really. You can't force someone to accept your version of ADR.''

I have no idea what you mean by this.

The option of independent arbitrator is in their terms of business.