Legal Protection / Motor Legal Assistance

OhJustSomeGuy

My car is parked outside the front of my house, on a cul-de-sac. A motorist attempted a three-point-turn but didn't quite make it and slightly damaged the front of my car, then drove off without informing me.

I was unaware of the incident but a neighbour heard the bang and informed me. I checked my CCTV and the incident is captured extremely clearly, including the number plate.

I reported the incident via the police website and uploaded the footage.

I also reported it to my car insurance provider, Go Skippy, on the same day and uploaded the footage. They passed my claim onto their claims handling partner, AX.

AX asked me to upload the footage again. After a week or so they asked me to call their repair shop and we booked my car in to be repaired with one of their partnering garages.

On the day before the repair, they called to say they haven't received confirmation from the third party's insurance company confirming that they will pay for the repairs, and referred me back to my insurer. After a couple of week's silence, Go Skippy emailed to say that they cannot pursue my claim because my insurance level is "Third Party, Fire and Theft" and suggested I pursue the third party myself!

I've always paid extra for Legal Protection thinking they would assist me in situations such as this.

Are Go Skippy within their rights here?

DullGreyGuy

TPFT cover is basically defence only in the case of an accident so they are correct to the extent that they won't help you under your motor policy. 

The Accident Management would be doing everything on credit and taking the risk on if they get repaid or not. It's up to them which risks they take on and which they won't. 

If you have Legal Expenses cover then the insurer on that policy should appoint someone to assist you in recovering your uninsured losses, which in your case is all your losses. It's likely to be a different insurer than your main car policy and may well have its own claim telephone number or sometimes your broker should initiate the claim ofr you.

TPFT is often more expensive than Comp cover so certainly make sure you compare the two when you renew. 

OhJustSomeGuy

Thanks. While not the answer I was hoping for, it's good to know that I'm not being stitched up, even though it felt like it. I'll just have to live with damage.

My car insurance is due for renewal and won't be paying extra for Legal Protection any more.

Just to clarify "Third Party Fire and Theft" insurance then. Does it only mean:

1. I'll only be compensated if my vehicle is damaged by fire or stolen.

2. Others will be compensated if I cause an accident.

OhJustSomeGuy

Coincidentally, they sent me an email quote today for renewing my car insurance. It shows the cover and cost of last year's insurance, but where I expected it to say Legal Protection it says:

Additional Products Selected Last Year:
Legal Expenses £25.99

So according to your message, they should still appoint someone to assist me in pursuing the third party's insurer?

DullGreyGuy

OhJustSomeGuy said:

Thanks. While not the answer I was hoping for, it's good to know that I'm not being stitched up, even though it felt like it. I'll just have to live with damage.

My car insurance is due for renewal and won't be paying extra for Legal Protection any more.

Just to clarify "Third Party Fire and Theft" insurance then. Does it only mean:

1. I'll only be compensated if my vehicle is damaged by fire or stolen.

2. Others will be compensated if I cause an accident.

On TPFT you are covered for:

1) Damage to your vehicle in the case of Fire or theft

2) Damage you cause to other vehicles in an accident, fire or theft etc

As such in accident claims they are only there to defend you either in an accident that is your fault or in an accident there there is a dispute as to who is at fault. They are therefore passive in nature so if you say it was a narrow lane collision but you managed to stop and the TP didnt then they will basically sit there for 6 months to see if anyone approaches them saying you were at fault (narrow lane collisions often have both sides saying they stopped but the other side didnt). 

OhJustSomeGuy said:

Coincidentally, they sent me an email quote today for renewing my car insurance. It shows the cover and cost of last year's insurance, but where I expected it to say Legal Protection it says:

Additional Products Selected Last Year:
Legal Expenses £25.99

So according to your message, they should still appoint someone to assist me in pursuing the third party's insurer?

Someone should be appointed under the LE cover however LE cover is often underwritten by a different company as to your main insurance and so you call your main insurance to register the claim but then also call your LE insurer to instigate a claim under that cover. If you bought via a broker sometimes you can call them and they register the claim against both your insurers. 

Look at your policy book's LE section, it will tell you how to start a claim. 

prettybirdzz05

OhJustSomeGuy said:

Thanks. While not the answer I was hoping for, it's good to know that I'm not being stitched up, even though it felt like it. I'll just have to live with damage.

My car insurance is due for renewal and won't be paying extra for Legal Protection any more.

Just to clarify "Third Party Fire and Theft" insurance then. Does it only mean:

1. I'll only be compensated if my vehicle is damaged by fire or stolen.

2. Others will be compensated if I cause an accident.

Hello.. hopefully this has a "quote" included, I'm a newbie and only joined today.
First, I should mention that on my policy I have the legal assistance added. I was told that if there was an 'incident' and someone was badly hurt, or if the 'incident' caused problems, then you need that cover, because legal costs could be very expensive and you'd have to cover them if you haven't got this 'protection' The cost for it this year for me was just £32. Last few years with Churchill, it's floated between £20-£24. SO well worth having..
My other comment concerns the TTFT. Now, years ago, in SW UK, a friend had their car stolen. That was back in the day when TTFT was easy to get, and was then also cheaper, therefore more common, than fully comp. Car was stolen, and insurers refused payment because it had ONLY been stolen and NOT set on fire. TTFT states fire AND theft!!
NFU was the company concerned. Apparently back then, there were just a handful of insurers offering fire OR theft, but this was, indeed, hearsay.. but certainly worth a mention because I'm unsure if that ruling still remains...any excuse not-to-pay comes to mind though.
As another poster has said, go for fully comp next time, with legal, and you're covered whatever then..

Another thing I'd like to add, if I'm allowed and maybe as a bit of a warning..
I'm not asking people to break any laws, because I'm not sure that my insurers have done the right thing. Everyone I've mentioned it to has said it's wrong, but... 
This is what happened.. I rang my insurer to get my renewal quote, their 'incompetence' was bad (for want of a more descriptive word!) So I looked elsewhere. I'm with a breakdown company that I'm happy with, they recommended their 'sister company'. Phone call later, I'm talking renewal with them.
Last year, I was out at a local village hall and one of the gents there reversed his land rover into the back of my car.
I was sat in it at the time. The bumper was damaged. I got quotes for fixing it. Approached the man, told him, he thought he'd hit the wall (!!) He'd driven off anyway. He got my details, after first saying he'd get insurance cover to fix it. Hence, and thinking he'd already named me to his insurer,, when Corn asked me "have there been any incidents, fault or non-fault in last 5years, I faltered and then said "No, not really " to which they asked what happened. Remembering that if he reported it, and I declined giving them the same information, I may've been prosecuted for FRAUD. (NEVER broken the law) but NO insurance company was ever approached by EITHER of us, he and his wife decided to pay cash. They paid the garage, car was fixed all was fine and basically forgotten about. BUT, and this is the important bit, my original quote from them RAISED by £40+.. So I added a comment to their website reviews on Trustpilot, basically saying the same advice as I'm going to give here, hopefully not getting in bother for doing so, PLEASE be aware of what happened to me. It's totally going to change my upbringing moral of honesty being the best policy, cos my advice now is, if you have an 'incident' like mine, KEEP YOUR MOUTH FIRMLY SHUT!!!! 

DullGreyGuy

You don't say how many years ago that was? I first worked in insurance 26 years ago taking first notification of loss calls (I then escaped and came back a couple of years later and stayed). Certainly back then TPFT covered Fire or Theft claims, you didnt need both perils to have occurred. It sounds more like an error made by NFU at the time. Probably circa 35 years ago my parents had a theft claim and wasn't an issue.

Obviously back then cars were simpler, given it can be stated it wasn't burnt out then it was recovered and maybe it didnt have any theft damage? I know my car from that time, owned by me later, could easily be opened with a coat hanger. The problem of old stories, same as second/third hand stories, is they often start to deviate from what really happened. 


When you get a quote you are typically asked if you have suffered any losses irrespective of if you have claimed for them or not. Your vehicle was presumably damaged in the incident and therefore you suffered a loss and it was declarable. You lied, aka committed fraud, by answering "no" when you knew it had been damaged. Now many people "forget" to mention minor accidents where they've decided to live with the damage or repair it privately etc but they ultimate are running the risk of their policy being void and becoming personally liable for the accidents they subsequently have. Had one policyholder we voided for non-declaration who ended up paying over £50,000 and that doesn't include the damage to their own vehicle. 

prettybirdzz05

DullGreyGuy THANK you for taking the time to read my comment and for answering. Appreciated.
a) The car theft year 1985. Stolen on an evening from outside his work. Joyridden then dumped on our beach... Suspect holidaymakers, or Grockles as they were known (still are now, i believe) back then!! 
b) I remember the days of the coat hanger too, bless you, haha!
c) My bit... I was very shocked indeed, at the fact that MY insurance premium went up, when I was the one whose car was hit, I was the victim here, through no fault of my own. I'm aware of people who have been shunted in supermarket car parks, but unlike me, and my big, fat, honest gob, they don't all run off and tell their insurers all about it. And indeed, although I was brought up to be honest, if I'd known for 100% surety that he hadn't been onto his insurance company with the information I thought he'd passed on to them, I would have indeed kept my big mouth shut. The result is, I have an increased insurance premium now, for the next FIVE years, and yes, I am pretty cross about it. I've been called all sorts of idiot by any, no EVERYONE I've told, and hey, yes, I really do feel stupid... As you have said, and they did say at Corn, if I hadn't declared it and he actually HAD reported it, then my insurance would have been taken, i.e cancelled, and then, once that happens, i believe you cant get insurance from anybody..I'm not sure if that's correct tho. Perhaps you have that answer for me as you were 'in the insurance game' as they say. I've never had insurance cancelled so I've no clue what happens, and I'm not gonna try it to see 😭 but thank you again for answering, and thank you for being nice. 👍 Have a good evening.

DullGreyGuy

Mass market consumer insurance isn't based on ivory tower thinking about correlations or thinking if red cars have more accidents than brown cars what does that mean for yellow cars? It's based on cold statistical analysis combined with an element of commercial considerations that cannot undermine the risk based premiums. 

Stats say that a person that has had one non-fault incident is slightly more likely to be involved in another... if you want to apply logic rather than maths then maybe its because they park in a badly designed carpark, this time someone was honest and left their details,, next time they may not. Maybe actually the non-fault driver is a poor driver and slams on their brakes at the last possible moment, last time they were rear ended but next time they may judge it wrong. 

Not all insurers increase for a single non-fault accident, even those that do reduce the impact over time. Those that are caught not declaring accidents add an extra issue, they've been proven to be dishonest/careless... maybe you should price in the fact they may be equally careless on all the other factors that are harder to check.