Motor Legal Protection

praven

I have seen another thread discussing this, but it only talks about one specific example of where this sort of legal protection did not seem to help. Can anyone say, in general, whether this option is worth the money?

Bossyboots

Following a recent accident I have taken advantage of my legal protection. I simply phoned the insurance company and they put one of their panel firms in touch with me. All I have to do at the moment is keep updating them on progress.

This was the best way forward for me as I would expect a panel firm to have been vetted for experience and good practice. Although I could have instructed my own solicitor, not only would they have had to jump through hoops to satisfy the insurers of their suitability but the only one I know is my boss's friend and that was just too close to home. I therefore figured that if I was going to instruct a stranger, it might as well be one already vetted. Between us, my OH and I have made personal injury/loss recovery claims by three different methods and so far this has been the most efficient.

The thread you refer to where the protection was not of much help is different to most claims. Here, the value of recovery is going to be vastly lower than the costs to be incurred. There is also doubt over whether anything will be recovered at all. Therefore, the advice not to proceed is sound. You will find it a term of the legal policy that you are only covered where the solicitor advises there is a good prospect of success, particularly where the sum involved is outweighed by other factors.

In addition to accident claims, if you find yourself on the wrong side of a motoring summons to which you have a valid defence, your costs will be met for that defence.

MarkyMarkD

The problem with the insurers' argument about the cost of pursuing the case exceeding the amount recovered, is that the financial benefit to the insured of pursuing it can seriously exceed the amount recovered.

You might have a third party damage claim where the cost of the damage is £100. The amount you are going to recover from the third party is likely to be £100 + costs, but the net recovery is only £100.

But because that £100 has been paid by your insurer, your premium might increase by £200 gross, and you might lose 2 years of NCD so that will cost you hugely more than £200 - say from £1,000 to £1,200 gross but from £400 to £720 net, and the following year from £400 to £600 net. That's an overall financial impact from the incident of £100 + £320 + £200 = £620.

So, a fair assessment of whether it's worth pursuing would be based on the £620, not the £100. I'm sure that is NOT the way that such insurers assess the cost/benefit when deciding not to bother pursuing the case.

I honestly think that in many cases it would be better not to have had the uninsured loss recovery insurance, and to have pursued the third party yourself through the small claims route - I doubt many insurers are going to defend a £100 or £200 claim if their insured is at least slightly flaky (and of course, I wouldn't even suggest going up against the third party in court unless you are happy of your position in the case).

When it comes to larger claims, it gets more difficult and I suppose that's where you hope that the ULR insurers will do the business for you.

For the record, I do purchase the cover, but I'm not convinced of its value.

lisyloo

Can someone please explain to me how this cover works.
I've got myself rather confused.

Firstly I've been told that you can only use it in connection with a claim.

So if you have say third party fire and theft cover and someone drives into you (100% their fault for arguments sake) then you can't claim on your own insurnace.

Do the insurance company help you claim against the 3rd party in this case (with or without legal cover)?

If not then what's the point of having legal cover on a third party claim?

I'd be grateful if someone could explain it to me as I'm just haing a mental block on it.

Bossyboots

I've have only had this cover on a fully comp policy but as far as I know if you are third party it will cover you for recovery of your losses against the other driver's insurers. Without the legal insurance cover, your own insurance won't want to know about any claims you make for damage to your own vehicle and they do not help you recover any other damages either.

In my recent accident, the other driver's insurers paid me direct for my vehicle so I did not need to invoke my legal expenses cover for that. If I had been unable to recover the money from the driver/insurer, my legal policy would have covered me for a loss recovery company to claim my excess which would have been payable as my own insurance would have covered the damage. I have a solicitor dealing with my personal injury claim, paid for under my policy.

lisyloo

but as far as I know if you are third party it will cover you for recovery of your losses against the other driver's insurers

Does anyone know whether this is true for definite? (no doubting your word, but unsure what "as far as I know means").

my legal policy would have covered me for a loss recovery company to claim my excess which would have been payable as my own insurance would have covered the damage

But in this case you have your own insurance, so you are using it "in connection with a claim".

I am still confused.
Can anyone clear it up.

What use is it with 3rd party insurance.

Many Thanks

Bossyboots

Perhaps we are at crossed purposes or I have interpreted motor legal protection differently. I understand this to be the additional paid for insurance I took out with my policy to pay for a solicitor to conduct a claim should I be involved in a no fault accident and suffer loss and/or injury. These policies also usually cover representation in proceedings brought against you, subject to conditions. You are not covered for driving offences unless you have a clear defence and a high chance of defeating the prosecution. You would be covered against someone making a civil claim against you as a result of your driving and although if you cause an accident this is ultimately the responsibility of your insurance company, proceedings would be issued against you direct in the first instance.

In your example, Driver A runs into Driver B. Driver B only has third party insurance but has paid for legal expenses insurance. Your own insurance company will appoint a loss recovery firm or solicitor to claim for your vehicle repairs/write off settlement and any compensation for injury or loss. The appointed representative will contact Driver A or in the better case scenario, their insurers and give them notice of claim. They will then present the figures and negotiate a settlement for you and if it cannot be agreed, eventually issue court proceedings. If Driver A is not insured, they can pursue him/her directly but if there is little chance of recovering your loss or doing so the costs outweigh the amount likely to be recovered (as in the other thread) they can refuse to authorise the action.

My policy document (which I have now dug out as no-one else has replied) makes no distinction between fully comp and third party. You can buy the legal protection with both. The only difference would be that in respect of damage to your own vehicle, your insurers would pay and the claim against the other driver would be for your excess and injury and loss with the fully comp.

Unless you need to make a claim or need legal representation for something else, you would not need to invoke your motor legal protection so I suppose technically you can only use it for a claim, but that is the only time you would use it. It is specific to motor claims and you cannot use it for any other purpose.

Without legal protection insurance, if you have an accident third party or fully comp, you will have to negotiate with the other driver/insurers yourself for recovery of your losses/compensation. If this was not agreed, you would either need to instruct a solicitor at your own expense, claims management firm again at your expense or issue proceedings yourself. The legal protection policy protects you from having to do all the negotiations and brings in a professional to help which is paid for under the policy. With fully comp, your insurance will pay for your own damage and then recover that themselves from the other insurers. They will not however recover your excess or any compensation for you.

I hope this makes sense. I know I don't always explain things very well but hopefully we will get this sussed and you will get the answers you are seeking.

MarkyMarkD

MLP is also called "uninsured loss recovery" insurance, which is rather more useful and clarifies what it covers IMHO.

If you are third party, and a third party hits you, the ULR insurer will pursue them on your behalf. Your own insurer won't care, as they aren't liable.

If you are comprehensively insured, and a third party hits you, your own insurer will settle your claim (less your excess) but should then pursue the third party for recovery of their full outlay including the excess, which they should then pass back to you. It shouldn't really be necessary to involve the ULR insurer in this case.

When I had a third party responsible accident, with comprehensive insurance, the third party's insurers sorted everything out directly with my insurers and there was no messing about with ULR insurers.

If I had wanted to pursue a personal injury claim, though, I expect I would have got the ULR insurer involved.

Hope that helps.

AuntyJean

Firstly, there are two separate claims to be pursued on a non-fault accident when comprehensively insured (where the other driver is deemed to be 100% to blame, ie hits you in the rear).

LE cover (or otherwise known as Uninsured Loss Recovery - ULR) provides for a firm to act for you to recover anything not covered by your insurance. In other words, if you have only TPF&Theft cover, you are not covered by insurance for the repairs to your vehicle so this deemed to be an uninsured loss recoverable from the third party insurers.

If you are fully comprehensively insured then there are two aspects of recovery, 1) your insurers will recover what they pay for repairs to your vehicle and 2) the LE/ULR agent will recover your excess and other costs.

Your insurers and the ULR agent act totally separately and sometimes they don't even correspond with eachother hence the reason why you may be asked the same question once by your insurer and once by your ULR agent (which by the way may be a solicitor if there is a PI (personal injury) claim).

In my opinion, LE/ULR agents come into play best where liability is in dispute. You will often hear the term 'uneconomical to pursue' where insurers cannot be bothered to argue the toss as their outlay is so small. If your AD (the Accidental Damage payable by insurers) is only £50 above your excess then your insurers won't bother pursuing beyond a couple of attempts (ie they would not go to court) but your ULR agents may well pursue the matter. If they are successful then your insurers will also recover their costs (and reinstate any bonus if a FULL recovery is made).

Many insurers have Inter-Office Agreements or similar where say insurer A has an agreement with insurer B that they won't recover against eachother (because over a period of time it breaks out about even) but will note your record as a non-fault accident with bonus allowed.

The alternative for a straight forward non-fault accident is to go direct to the third party insurers. Many of them will now arrange for your repairs at full cost to them and provide a courtesy car whilst yours is being repaired.

Where there is a personal injury, there are thousands of solicitors who are willing to take these on, on a no win no fee basis. Unknown to the Claimant (you) their fees usually exceed what you get in compensation. They can also take out after the event cover for you.

I personally do not bother with LE for motor as I would be prepared to deal with recovery of my excess myself due to my experience but for the average person I would recommend it.

Finally, if the third party is uninsured or, untraceable the MIB (Motor Insurers Bureau) can assist in certain circumstances.

lisyloo

OK, thanks.

I had the idea that it would only cover the extras if you actually HAD insurance for the claim.

I think I must have been mis-led by someone in a call centre at some point.

I must say that I was going to go with morethan this year, but was totally unimpressed with their call centre, so I decided against it.

AuntyJean

I will warn you now, a lot of the call centres are in India. NU were the first and others are following.

It would seem to me that the majority of them have only been trained on the very basic information and they do not have the experience to answer 'what if?'.

BTW, if you do go fully comp (which appears to cost the same or even less in most cases), and you do have a non-fault accident, the ULR agent will only recover UNINSURED losses. In other words, you would have to go through your insurance for your repairs (unless you go the third party route as explained earlier).