Jury Service Out of Pocket

MSE_Tony

Just an outside chance but if you Home Insurance cover - and it comes with Legal Expenses protection, it may be worthwhile to check the policy wording/or give them a call and ask.

Some (ie: Direct Line, Admiral that I have come across) give some cover.

I am unsure how easy, how much you are covered up to, or the process, but it could be an option if it is included within your policy.

35har1old

saker75 said:

I understand what you’re saying and I too suffered financially when I did jury service. However that’s a cost we need to factor in. It’s only right and proper that we’re ready to serve. My self employed rate was £500/day and had just come out of a fallow period. I agree that the courts should pay at a rate more equitable to earnings it would be hard for them to do so.

MattMattMattUK said:

born_again said:

peanut99 said:

theoretica said:

And similarly, why should different people on the jury be paid different amounts for doing the same thing, just because of what they normally earn? 

I believe that the loss of earnings you may claim doubles after 10 days.

The point is that I'm being forced to not work thus putting me in financial hardship. The court pay £30ish for up to 4hrs sitting and around £60 for sitting over 4hrs in a day. I would've worked 12hrs! Some days we've sat for less than 4hrs. That's a loss of upto £90 a day in wages on the days I should've worked. Times that by 4 shifts so far that I've lost and that's a loss of over £300 in earnings. You might not see that as a problem but I have a house to run and bills to pay! 
Jurors should get full pay regardless! We're not choosing not to work and that's my point. Plenty of people in the country sat on benefits that refuse to work, make them do it instead. 

You've clearly never done Jury Service and had to suffer the financial consequences as a result judging by your comment, which didn't even answer my question 🙄 

So daughter has just been called for jury service, got the nice claims limits.

1st 10 days  loss of earnings & care costs: More than 4 hours = £64.95 Less = £32.47
11 days or more: More than 4 hours = £129.91 Less = £64.95

Travel costs Bus cost of ticket (std return)
Car 31.4 per mile

Daughter is expected to work if not on case & sent home early.

So OP could have gone to work, when less than 4 hours. Thus would have got £32.47 + wages.

In fairness that only works if it can fit in with the employer/shift patterns etc. and shifts rarely allow one to just rock up at a day/time of one's choosing, though it might work very well for those who were on flexible working. 

Same allowance paid for motor bike 31.4 p a mile sames a bit unfair.if you take a taxis the court has to be consulted which could prove more expensive than a car
I think Saying he could have gone to work is unrealistic as  the type of work he does his shift has already be covered by a another member of staff.i can,t see his employer being able to plan for him just to turn up on the off chance of being released after 4hrs of service

Grumpy_chap

MSE_Tony said:

Just an outside chance but if you Home Insurance cover - and it comes with Legal Expenses protection, it may be worthwhile to check the policy wording/or give them a call and ask.

Some (ie: Direct Line, Admiral that I have come across) give some cover.

I am unsure how easy, how much you are covered up to, or the process, but it could be an option if it is included within your policy.

What would be the insured event covered by being called for Jury Service and within the Legal Expenses part of Home Insurance?  AIUI, such policies are usually relevant if the individual has to make a claim for some reason, not just called to Jury Service.

Perhaps, income protection policy might come into play??

lisyloo

MSE_Tony said:

Just an outside chance but if you Home Insurance cover - and it comes with Legal Expenses protection, it may be worthwhile to check the policy wording/or give them a call and ask.

Some (ie: Direct Line, Admiral that I have come across) give some cover.

I am unsure how easy, how much you are covered up to, or the process, but it could be an option if it is included within your policy.

Legal expenses doesn't pay out.
It covers solicitors fee if you win a claim against a 3rd party.
There is no valid claim here.
It's just the rules that are unfair.

It sounds like the OP is in a job where cover is required so they can't just turn up because someone else would have been rostered to cover.

The rules are unfair, but ideally we all need to have financial planning in place for these type of things.
This one is more unusual that the normal one's you'd think of like death, accident, redundancy, sickness, house repairs, car repairs, but the answer (for anyone planning) is to have a "bucket" for emergencies as you can't plan for everything.

MSE_Tony

lisyloo said:

MSE_Tony said:

Just an outside chance but if you Home Insurance cover - and it comes with Legal Expenses protection, it may be worthwhile to check the policy wording/or give them a call and ask.

Some (ie: Direct Line, Admiral that I have come across) give some cover.

I am unsure how easy, how much you are covered up to, or the process, but it could be an option if it is included within your policy.

Legal expenses doesn't pay out.
It covers solicitors fee if you win a claim against a 3rd party.
There is no valid claim here.
It's just the rules that are unfair.

It sounds like the OP is in a job where cover is required so they can't just turn up because someone else would have been rostered to cover.

The rules are unfair, but ideally we all need to have financial planning in place for these type of things.
This one is more unusual that the normal one's you'd think of like death, accident, redundancy, sickness, house repairs, car repairs, but the answer (for anyone planning) is to have a "bucket" for emergencies as you can't plan for everything.

Totally understand that is the main benefit of Legal Expenses cover - but not all of them are the same. Still think it is worth a phone call - and ask.

Why? ... This is the wording from one well know insurance company (within the Legal protection bit of the policy):

Jury service
Your absence from work:
a. to attend any court or tribunal at the request of the appointed representative
b. to perform jury service
c. to carry out activities specified in your identity theft action plan under insured incident Personal identity fraud.
The maximum we will pay is your net salary or wages for the time that you are absent from work less any amount the court gives you.

Not covered:
Any claim if you are unable to prove your loss

MSE_Tony

Grumpy_chap said:

MSE_Tony said:

Just an outside chance but if you Home Insurance cover - and it comes with Legal Expenses protection, it may be worthwhile to check the policy wording/or give them a call and ask.

Some (ie: Direct Line, Admiral that I have come across) give some cover.

I am unsure how easy, how much you are covered up to, or the process, but it could be an option if it is included within your policy.

What would be the insured event covered by being called for Jury Service and within the Legal Expenses part of Home Insurance?  AIUI, such policies are usually relevant if the individual has to make a claim for some reason, not just called to Jury Service.

Perhaps, income protection policy might come into play??

I think it is just an unknown add-on perk and think being out of pocket to attend Jury Service is the insured event - but worth a phone call to check.

Undervalued

lisyloo said:

MSE_Tony said:

Just an outside chance but if you Home Insurance cover - and it comes with Legal Expenses protection, it may be worthwhile to check the policy wording/or give them a call and ask.

Some (ie: Direct Line, Admiral that I have come across) give some cover.

I am unsure how easy, how much you are covered up to, or the process, but it could be an option if it is included within your policy.

Legal expenses doesn't pay out.
It covers solicitors fee if you win a claim against a 3rd party.
There is no valid claim here.
It's just the rules that are unfair.

It sounds like the OP is in a job where cover is required so they can't just turn up because someone else would have been rostered to cover.

The rules are unfair, but ideally we all need to have financial planning in place for these type of things.
This one is more unusual that the normal one's you'd think of like death, accident, redundancy, sickness, house repairs, car repairs, but the answer (for anyone planning) is to have a "bucket" for emergencies as you can't plan for everything.

Some, not all, legal expenses policies do specifically cover your losses if you are called for jury service.

lisyloo

Undervalued said:

lisyloo said:

MSE_Tony said:

Just an outside chance but if you Home Insurance cover - and it comes with Legal Expenses protection, it may be worthwhile to check the policy wording/or give them a call and ask.

Some (ie: Direct Line, Admiral that I have come across) give some cover.

I am unsure how easy, how much you are covered up to, or the process, but it could be an option if it is included within your policy.

Legal expenses doesn't pay out.
It covers solicitors fee if you win a claim against a 3rd party.
There is no valid claim here.
It's just the rules that are unfair.

It sounds like the OP is in a job where cover is required so they can't just turn up because someone else would have been rostered to cover.

The rules are unfair, but ideally we all need to have financial planning in place for these type of things.
This one is more unusual that the normal one's you'd think of like death, accident, redundancy, sickness, house repairs, car repairs, but the answer (for anyone planning) is to have a "bucket" for emergencies as you can't plan for everything.

Some, not all, legal expenses policies do specifically cover your losses if you are called for jury service.

Brill, thanks. I agree worth looking - point taken.
I always take legal expenses and prefer standalone now after reading one or two cases where people have had issues with their home insurers after major claims.
You can't sue your home insurer with their own add-on, so a standalone one can be better - albeit those are exceptional scenarios.

Coconutt

I've been summoned for Jury service in a couple of months too for "up to two weeks but may be longer", and am happy to do so.  My employer won't pay me, and the expenses paid by the Court will not cover my loss of earnings.  In this day and age it does seem a bit "off" that someone can be compelled to do this and be effectively paid less than the National Minimum wage.  In those first two weeks  ( 10 Court days ) for a 4 hour day it's £32.47 without accounting for travelling time, which is a fraction under £8.12 per hour, when the National Minimum wage is currently £11.44 per hour. For an 8 hour day the expenses paid would be £64.95 which works out at just under £8.12 per hour.  In my personal opinion it would be more transparent and fairer if the expenses paid were comparable to (at least) the National Minimum wage.  I think it is completely unfair and wrong that decent law abiding members of the public can be effectively fined ( by loss of actual earnings ) when they are compelled to fulfil their public duty and act as a Juror. ( Note : Facing genuine financial hardship is not mentioned on the paperwork I received as a reason for being excused from Jury service ).

EnPointe

MorningcoffeeIV said:

peanut99 said:

theoretica said:

And similarly, why should different people on the jury be paid different amounts for doing the same thing, just because of what they normally earn? 

I believe that the loss of earnings you may claim doubles after 10 days.

Plenty of people in the country sat on benefits that refuse to work, make them do it instead. 

Yet the law states that anyone accused of a crime should have the right to be tried in front of their peers.

Why do you believe that all defendants are on benefits?

Some defendants might even be night workers.

the OP really isn't helping themselves  with some of these comments  and seems to be ignoring the  advice, information  and facts ( backed  by  citations )   being offered  by the commentors