Car Insurance - legal cover as an extra?

Discussion in 'Cars, Bikes 'n AFVs' started by flamingo, Oct 4, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. HI

    Just took out a new car insurance police, and have just had the new insurers on the phone giving the hard sell on taking out legal cover as well.

    Apparently this includes a replacement car for 72 hours if my fault, or until claim settled if not my fault, £75 000 towards legal fees, and assistance with uninsured losses reclaim.

    I am a cynic, and am viewing this as being an excuse for getting another £30 out of me. In these days of "where there's blame, you can claim" adverts on TV, do I really need £75 000 to pay soliciters, and the replacement car will not be a big benefit, as I have another car anyway.

    Any thoughts as to whether this is worth doing? I take the view that if it's that good, it would be costing them money so they would'nt be offering it.
     
  2. Just changed my car and re-did the insurance. Quite happy with existing company and quote but they did go on (and on) about "extra legal cover." I couldn't get the daft bint to shut up about it.

    Did you know that I "could be liable for hundreds of thousands of pounds if I end up in court without their cover..." her words.
    I'll take that chance.
     
  3. I always try to avoid insurance where possible - I take what is legally required, but ignore what isn't.

    Therefore, I wouldn't take legal cover, or payment protection etc.
     
  4. Its not worth it. I work in an insurance company (sorry) the companies buy the cover for pennies then when you try to claim on it they appoint some shoddy lawyer who you will never hear from, if you use your own lawyer then you will be in breach of the terms of the policy.

    Oh and the hire car will be tiny and completly useless to anyone with kids, or a fat wife.
     
  5. Get back to work o-b. Your boss is watching you :wink:


    Also beware that sometimes it is also sold assumptively where the bod will tell you that your cover includes legal protection with such and such cover, but it is actually a part of cover that you can choose not to have... the same as travel insurance you can choose not to have baggage covered especially if you have personal belongings covered on your home contents where the cover is worldwide and always to a higher level of cover.
     
  6. Thanks everyone, my gut is that it fell into the same category as the "extended warrenty" that costs £100 on an £80 microwave.

    Have a good day, don't let the boss catch you OB!
     

  7. Not as much as i watch her 8)
     
  8. Agreed, the worst of the lot has to be Irwin Mitchell- Mrs Pike is still waiting for damages 20 months after the event occurred.
     
  9. On the other hand....

    Several years ago, I was driving through road works on the M1 (no, not the same ones as now) and, as per usual, movement was 50yds every 2 minutes.

    After about an hour, coming to a halt during one of the moves, I noticed the car behind the one behind me wasn't slowing down. I just had time to shout "Hold on!" to my passengers before the car behind was shunted into my boot.

    Unusually, the Police were on the scene in seconds - literally! - and, having ascertained that there were no injuries and that my car was still movable, told me to drive on. As I hadn't even had time to get out of the car, I told Plod that I hadn't exchanged details with the other drivers involved. Plod's answer was that he'd collect the details and send them on to me. He took down my address and off I went.

    A week later and no call or letter from Plod, I began the search for the Force responsible for that stretch of motorway. I was eventually given the details of the driver of the car behind me, but not those of the driver who started the shunt (privileged information that I was not entitled to).

    I sent these details to my insurance company and waited. A month passed, after which my insurance company told me that they couldn't pay up until the collision behind me had been resolved.

    I contacted the driver who ran into the back of me and was informed that she had not been given the details of the driver who rammed her. Evidently, the bloke had given a false name and address to the copper at the scene of the accident. Additionally, his car was neither taxed nor tested and, it was suspected, wasn't insured. The Police had told her, on the quiet, that investigations had led them to believe that the driver was a soldier, but with four soldiers in the car and each subsequently claiming it was one of the others, they couldn't identify which one was actually driving.

    The upshot was that she never got her claim sorted out and I had the choice of forgetting the incident or losing my excess (without resort to claiming it back) and losing my NCB in exchange for the cost of repairs.

    If I'd had legal protection (so I was advised), I would have had the repairs done immediately at no cost to myself and the insurance company's lawyers would have set about recouping their losses from the other insurance companies or drivers.

    So, two morals:
    1. Legal protection can be useful in some circumstances.
    2. Don't entrust Plod with getting the other drivers' details.
     
  10. I was advised once, ALWAYS claim to have been injured, whiplash etc. It forces plod to attend and take details, and you can always make a full recovery within 24 hours and don't have to include it in your claim. Also, as I can vouch from personal experience, whiplash etc can take up to 24 hours to manifist itself.
     
  11. There are plenty of Accident Management companies who you can approach AFTER an accident who will admin the claim for you. If you were not at fault then it shouldn't cost you a penny, plus a lot of these AM companies don't charge any membership or joining fee. Basically, they make their money by charging the opposing insurance co for the hire car, storage of yours if written off unti the claim is finalised, and on the legal side they'll make something if there is a personal injury claim. You get less assistance if it was your fault on the hire car side but the motor insurance companies automatically load the cover into the premium quoted unless you ask them nicely to take it off.

    Mrs CS had her car written off a few months back, we used an AM company, no bother. All paid out, FOC hire car of a similar size to what she was driving, not a micra with no wheeltrims.

    I have to admit that the AM company was part of the group I work for so that may have had something to do with it!
     
  12. Were you and the lady behind you covered by the same company (even if a different trading name) by any chance?

    As I understand it, in a case like that, your claim is stricktly with the car that hit you. Whether or not she manages to claim back against the one behind her is immaterial - her insurers are responsible for paying out on your car. Of course, if she was insured by the same company as you, if they can get away without paying on this basis then they will! And then potentially increase both of your premiums on an "any accidents or claims regardless of fault...." basis ;)
     
  13. Spunky:

    As far as I recall, (it's going back about 20 years), we were with different insurers, though as there are so many "front" companies, I wouldn't swear to this.

    Your statement is absolutely true, but insurers don't have a time limitation on the settlement of claims, though they may set a limit on provision of a courtesy car etc.

    There is the option of taking the insurer to court, but (in my case) the loss of earnings that would result, and would probably not be considered in a court settlement, outweighed the cost of repairs.
     
  14. That makes sense - so, if you'd paid them extra for legal cover, they would have covered the prospect of you taking them to court and that would have made it easier for them to settle. Sounds like an extended waranty to me :lol:
     
  15. That about sums it up. The difference is that I don't need my washing machine for work and there's no third party involvement.

    Perversely, if you plan to have a REALLY big accident, then legal cover is unlikely to be needed (I think it excludes manslaughter), but it's probably most useful for the niggly little things that would tie up your time for little return like claiming back your excess from a third party.

    edited:

    No, now I think about it. The extended warranty equivalent is buying breakdown cover. Probably the only sensible extended warranty to buy.