The time has come to renew the insurance on the Z so going through the yearly ritual of comparison sites and all the quotes don't include legal cover, that's an extra, usually about 30 quid or so. In 28 years of driving I've never had to use legal cover so is it worth having or not? What are the implications if you don't have it? Does anybody know?
Is legal cover worth it?
- Thread starter bandit12
- Start date
I reckon this was originally just a scam introduced by insurance companies in the late eighties to get us to pay more for something that they should have been underwriting anyway. When it first started I think it was worth having if you were 3rd party fire and theft but if your cover is fully comp I don't see that it adds anything in reality.
Iirc I queried it once and was told that it covered me for 'un-insured losses', but when I asked how there could be any un-insured losses in the first place as the cover already provided is described as FULLY COMPREHENSIVE I never got a substantive explanation. :?
Iirc I queried it once and was told that it covered me for 'un-insured losses', but when I asked how there could be any un-insured losses in the first place as the cover already provided is described as FULLY COMPREHENSIVE I never got a substantive explanation. :?
I have had mine for many years (currently part of my CSMA membership) having learnt the hard way.
My wife had an accident years ago and we did not go after the other party to reclaim our excess. When renewal time came, we were judged to have had a fault claim as we had not recovered the excess. Cost me more in insurance for at least 5 years.
I had an accident a few years later when an American lady drove into my car. Attempts to recover excess would have failed had it not been for my legal cover and their persistence in getting my money back.
My wife had an accident years ago and we did not go after the other party to reclaim our excess. When renewal time came, we were judged to have had a fault claim as we had not recovered the excess. Cost me more in insurance for at least 5 years.
I had an accident a few years later when an American lady drove into my car. Attempts to recover excess would have failed had it not been for my legal cover and their persistence in getting my money back.
So there you have it. Insurance companies want to charge you because they can't be arsed to recover your excess for you under 100% non-fault scenarios.
Personally I would have taken the above example to the Ombudsman if they tried to up my premium after full recovery in a non-fault case because the excess that they set wasn't recovered by the cover they provided. They are effectively saying you need 2 policies otherwise the fault allocation on their part exceeds 100% in the interests of generating income for themselves. :thumbsdown:
Personally I would have taken the above example to the Ombudsman if they tried to up my premium after full recovery in a non-fault case because the excess that they set wasn't recovered by the cover they provided. They are effectively saying you need 2 policies otherwise the fault allocation on their part exceeds 100% in the interests of generating income for themselves. :thumbsdown:
Im using mine to recover my excess cost but thats it. Still worth it though.