RiderSite.com - Motorcycle Forums

Just looking for peoples view on this

Well - I might as well be consistent with my answer to your other thread.

No - TC says it's not worth it.

Na. Pay them to have me jump through more hoops? I think not.

why if im fully comp surely im coverd to claim any legal expensis

TC's comments are in a reply in this thread - well worth reading

https://www.ridersite.com/viewtopic.ph ... ight=legal

Always looked like paying them to do what they should already be doing. I don't bother with it.

Thanks for the link andy. An interesting read.
I have three bike policys and two car policys.
Generally the legal cover is 15 quid on each. They won't be getting any more of this money.

I voted yes because when I had an off years ago I had legal cover and the upshot was that I got paid for the bike, the clothing, all the expenses incurred while I was recovering (right down to the last aspirin! and paying someone to cut our lawn) and time off work.

BikerGran wrote:I voted yes because when I had an off years ago I had legal cover and the upshot was that I got paid for the bike, the clothing, all the expenses incurred while I was recovering (right down to the last aspirin! and paying someone to cut our lawn) and time off work.

That is not down to the fact that you had legal cover, that is because if the solicitors do the job properly they are the elements they should claim for as a matter of course.

In serious cases they should also have case management in place, and as I have said before every expense incurred which includes maybe the gardener or someone doing the shopping for you.


So they have only done and claimed what they should have claimed for

the issue isnt what happens when you have a serious accident but what happens if you have a minor bump and need to recover your excess. Would I really get a no win no fee lawyer interested in recovering (say) £250?

I am assuming that the system isnt silly enough to allow lawyers top claim £10k of costs on a £250 claim. ,If it does then there is no problem for anyone but the people who pay the premiums

Another question that occurs to me is, what about the situation where you are not likely to win, but need legal representation? For instance, where you know you are partly at fault but should not be held entirely responsible?

Come to that, what about where you are definitely at fault and need legal help?

BikerGran wrote:Another question that occurs to me is, what about the situation where you are not likely to win, but need legal representation? For instance, where you know you are partly at fault but should not be held entirely responsible?

Come to that, what about where you are definitely at fault and need legal help?

If you are at fault, you do not need legal help as that is why you have insurance which will cover all the costs and which includes damage and injury to third parties.

The only time legal representation is really required is where you are not at fault or even if there is a case of contributory negligence, providing there is an on the balance of probability of 51% or more the chance of success, you will get legal representation with ATE insurance in place as well.

If the crash is damage only, then as I mentioned in a previous thread, your insurers will do the letter of claim for you as part of their cover, particularly as fixed costs are now in place, or you can issue proceedings yourself in the county court which often results in a quicker settlement simply because the third party realise that there are not going to be significant legal costs.

Many people also have LEI as part of their home contents cover which does come free, and you can utilise that if you wish.