Does everybody still take out motor legal expenses cover as an extra part of their car insurance policy ? Some people say it's not worth it just get a local solicitor if needed but I've always taken it for peace of mind and the ease of keeping things in house, so to speak. Rare occasion when required in the past it made the process a bit less hassle.

Tbh I don't really understand what it's used for?  I never went for any extras on car insurance, just chose not to drive into stuff instead, saves all the hassle.  

It's generally for chasing uninsured losses and covering any legal expenses you may incur as part of any proceedings brought against yourself.

1 minute ago, MCF said:

It's generally for chasing uninsured losses and covering any legal expenses you may incur as part of any proceedings brought against yourself.

Why would any proceedings be brought against myself if I haven't hit anything?

Uninsured driver promise is standard with some insurers, so it's likely to be cheaper to go with one of those than add legal cover as an option to an initially cheaper quote.

1 hour ago, MCF said:

Does everybody still take out motor legal expenses cover as an extra part of their car insurance policy ?.

In 40+ years, have never ever taken this option out - waste of money. The kind of person that often takes this out is the kind that will buy the insurance policy out in Currys on a £10 toaster 🤣

Perhaps it's just me but when I pay top dollar and take out a "Fully Comprehensive" insurance policy, I expect it to do what it says on the tin.

If damage is caused to my vehicle by what ever means, and there is no other party to claim against (for what ever reason) then I expect my fully comprehensive policy to cover the repair. Now I know that I'd have to pay the excess, and of course I'd loose my 'no claims' discount but I'd still be covered, yes ?

If on the other hand I was to have a major crash that was my fault, and I caused damage to others and property then I'd expect my insurance company to deal with it. After all isn't that what I'm paying them for ?

5 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

Why would any proceedings be brought against myself if I haven't hit anything?

Uninsured driver promise is standard with some insurers, so it's likely to be cheaper to go with one of those than add legal cover as an option to an initially cheaper quote.

Maybe I worded it wrongly. Incase proceedings are brought against yourself by a third party. Costs are covered up to specified amount.

2 hours ago, unofix said:

Perhaps it's just me but when I pay top dollar and take out a "Fully Comprehensive" insurance policy, I expect it to do what it says on the tin.

If damage is caused to my vehicle by what ever means, and there is no other party to claim against (for what ever reason) then I expect my fully comprehensive policy to cover the repair. Now I know that I'd have to pay the excess, and of course I'd loose my 'no claims' discount but I'd still be covered, yes ?

If on the other hand I was to have a major crash that was my fault, and I caused damage to others and property then I'd expect my insurance company to deal with it. After all isn't that what I'm paying them for ?

Yes. It's the uninsured losses that they claim it covers against. 

4 minutes ago, MCF said:

Incase proceedings are brought against yourself by a third party.

Since your insurance company insured "you" then surely it is up to them to deal with any proceedings?

I have used the services of the motor legal expenses cover once. I was stationary at traffic lights and a vehicle reversed out of a parking space at the side of the road and hit my car. I pulled forward a few feet into a safe place and got out of my car to examine the damage. At that point the other vehicle drove off. I got the registration number.

The legal expenses cover arranged and paid for tracing the other driver. The other driver denied responsibility but it was proved that damage on their car matched damage on mine, their insurance company accepted full liability. I did not lose any of my no-claims bonus. It was a positive experience for me.

The thing that I didn't like was the legal expenses people trying to maximise the value of the claim. Was I absolutely certain that I wasn't injured? Was I sure I didn't need a hire car? I got the idea that they were trying to bump up the cost and make some money, perhaps through commissions. 

 

15 minutes ago, unofix said:

Since your insurance company insured "you" then surely it is up to them to deal with any proceedings?

Yes I'm sure they will take care of most things and some companies better than others. After someone hit me last year they dealt with everything but due to the other side dragging their heels over payment even after admitting liability court papers were issued to resolve it. Fortunately they paid all money back owed to my insurance company before the court date. I should imagine out of pocket expenses would need to be chased by a solicitor, luckily none incurred 

6 hours ago, StephenFord said:

In 40+ years, have never ever taken this option out - waste of money. The kind of person that often takes this out is the kind that will buy the insurance policy out in Currys on a £10 toaster 🤣

Personally, the only gadget insurance I've ever taken out was for an expensive quality  hi-fi. And really needed it one day. 

9 minutes ago, pcaouolte said:

...Was I absolutely certain that I wasn't injured? Was I sure I didn't need a hire car? I got the idea that they were trying to bump up the cost and make some money, perhaps through commissions.

In the same way that my pet insurance a while back claimed treatment for my cat from local vet. The policy limit was £1000. The total claim came to £1050, odd that... 🤣

1 minute ago, MCF said:

Personally, the only gadget insurance I've ever taken out was for an expensive quality  hi-fi. And really needed it one day. 

Mustn't have been that 'quality' then 🤣

Just now, StephenFord said:

Mustn't have been that 'quality' then 🤣

Hi quality hi-fi met low quality tape. Tape deck lost. CD was amazing on that machine.

16 minutes ago, pcaouolte said:

I have used the services of the motor legal expenses cover once. I was stationary at traffic lights and a vehicle reversed out of a parking space at the side of the road and hit my car. I pulled forward a few feet into a safe place and got out of my car to examine the damage. At that point the other vehicle drove off. I got the registration number.

The legal expenses cover arranged and paid for tracing the other driver. The other driver denied responsibility but it was proved that damage on their car matched damage on mine, their insurance company accepted full liability. I did not lose any of my no-claims bonus. It was a positive experience for me.

The thing that I didn't like was the legal expenses people trying to maximise the value of the claim. Was I absolutely certain that I wasn't injured? Was I sure I didn't need a hire car? I got the idea that they were trying to bump up the cost and make some money, perhaps through commissions. 

 

I also think some people may not be aware of a change in no win no fee rules. Appointing solicitors separately can see you paying out expenses from a winning legal claim.

2 minutes ago, MCF said:

of a change in no win no fee rules. Appointing solicitors separately can see you paying out expenses from a winning legal claim

Surely the clue is in the name ?

No Win = No Fee

Meaning by default

We/You Win then pay us a Fee !! 🎉

Of course the solicitors want paid if they win your case, that has always been true.

6 minutes ago, unofix said:

Surely the clue is in the name ?

No Win = No Fee

Meaning by default

We/You Win then pay us a Fee !! 🎉

Of course the solicitors want paid if they win your case, that has always been true.

Of course. Difference now is if you win some of the legal costs come from your payout. 

2 minutes ago, MCF said:

Of course. Difference now is if you win some of the legal costs come from your payout. 

I always thought it did! How else did they get paid?

2 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

I always thought it did! How else did they get paid?

All costs used to be recovered separately from the other party in a successful case. You kept the full compensation payout.

It makes zero difference.

1 hour ago, MCF said:

Maybe I worded it wrongly. Incase proceedings are brought against yourself by a third party. Costs are covered up to specified amount.

Ok, I still don't get it.  If I haven't hit anything, surely there is no reason for a third party to make a claim against me.

I'd never claim on my own insurance anyway.  I only have it because it's a legal requirement.  I am generally very careful with everything.  If minor damage occurs I'll either fix it myself or live with it.  I'd someone else damaged my car considerably then it'll be their insurance dealing with it.  I really don't bother about how good an insurance company is it how many options they offer as I never intend to use it, and never have so far.  (With the exception of windscreen cover).

3 minutes ago, unofix said:

It makes zero difference.

Are you suggesting insurance companies are up to no good? LOL Maybe in the future there'll be a class action of, 'have you been the victim of no fee, no claim??' 😂

11 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

Are you suggesting insurance companies are up to no good? LOL Maybe in the future there'll be a class action of, 'have you been the victim of no fee, no claim??' 😂

No. Anyway,  I can see there is some push back against it so it comes down to personal preference about how much cover we are comfortable with. Thanks everyone.👍