Legal Expenses Cover Issues
Discussion
Find a costs draftsman and ask him to consider the insurers solicitors quote, assuming it's broken down enough for them to make sense of. Costs draftsmen are pretty cheap.
You could also find alternative quotes from other solicitors. Is it a specific term that you must use that solicitor the LEI refers you to? I didn't think they could actually do that.
You could also find alternative quotes from other solicitors. Is it a specific term that you must use that solicitor the LEI refers you to? I didn't think they could actually do that.
This amount is small enough to qualify for the small claims court. You don't need a solicitor. If you've not done so already send a letter before action asking that the builder pay the balance and giving a 28 day deadline.
If he fails to respond, raise a claim with moneyclaimonline.
If he fails to respond, raise a claim with moneyclaimonline.
mikeveal said:
This amount is small enough to qualify for the small claims court. You don't need a solicitor. If you've not done so already send a letter before action asking that the builder pay the balance and giving a 28 day deadline.
If he fails to respond, raise a claim with moneyclaimonline.
True but, with respect, irrelevant. The OP doesn't want to have to pursue the claim himself. He wants to avail himself of the cover which should seemingly be provided by his LEI policy. If he fails to respond, raise a claim with moneyclaimonline.
OP, the costs are probably a bit on the high side but they're not completely out of the ballpark. It depends to some extent on where you are and what the prevailing hourly rate. It's not hard to see costs escalating to somewhere approaching what is quoted if there ended up being a dispute about the remedial works that were required, and if expert evidence was required to address that.
The cost of pursuing the claim shouldn't in itself be a bar to them agreeing to provide cover, unless the policy expressly affords the insurer a right to reject a claim if the costs would be disproportionate. Insurers who offer LEI policies in my experience hate small claims because it's lose/lose from their point of view - even if the claim succeeds, they won't recover any of the money they have had to pay out because of the no costs recovery rule.
Lurking Lawyer said:
...Insurers who offer LEI policies in my experience hate small claims because it's lose/lose from their point of view - even if the claim succeeds, they won't recover any of the money they have had to pay out because of the no costs recovery rule.
Which is exactly why I don't bother with Legal Protection Insurance.Lurking Lawyer said:
True but, with respect, irrelevant. The OP doesn't want to have to pursue the claim himself. He wants to avail himself of the cover which should seemingly be provided by his LEI policy.
I wonder if the small print says anything about cases where the fees would be disproportionate to the size of claim? I bet it does.Lurking Lawyer said:
True but, with respect, irrelevant. The OP doesn't want to have to pursue the claim himself. He wants to avail himself of the cover which should seemingly be provided by his LEI policy.
OP, the costs are probably a bit on the high side but they're not completely out of the ballpark. It depends to some extent on where you are and what the prevailing hourly rate. It's not hard to see costs escalating to somewhere approaching what is quoted if there ended up being a dispute about the remedial works that were required, and if expert evidence was required to address that.
The cost of pursuing the claim shouldn't in itself be a bar to them agreeing to provide cover, unless the policy expressly affords the insurer a right to reject a claim if the costs would be disproportionate. Insurers who offer LEI policies in my experience hate small claims because it's lose/lose from their point of view - even if the claim succeeds, they won't recover any of the money they have had to pay out because of the no costs recovery rule.
If it were to reach trial, is there a risk it could spill over into a multi-day case, taking it out of small claims?OP, the costs are probably a bit on the high side but they're not completely out of the ballpark. It depends to some extent on where you are and what the prevailing hourly rate. It's not hard to see costs escalating to somewhere approaching what is quoted if there ended up being a dispute about the remedial works that were required, and if expert evidence was required to address that.
The cost of pursuing the claim shouldn't in itself be a bar to them agreeing to provide cover, unless the policy expressly affords the insurer a right to reject a claim if the costs would be disproportionate. Insurers who offer LEI policies in my experience hate small claims because it's lose/lose from their point of view - even if the claim succeeds, they won't recover any of the money they have had to pay out because of the no costs recovery rule.
janesmith1950 said:
If it were to reach trial, is there a risk it could spill over into a multi-day case, taking it out of small claims?
It's possible. It's only a presumption that any claim for less than £10K is allocated to the small claims track. You can have claims for less allocated to the fast track (I've even seen one allocated to the multi-track once) where they involve more complicated issues of fact and/or law, and conversely it's quite possible for a claim for more than £10K to be allocated to the small claims track if it's particularly straightforward.I suspect though that the court is going to want to keep a £4K-ish building dispute claim to at most a one day small claims listing, quite possibly a half-day listing, and would take some convincing to the contrary....
We've encountered a very similar situation recently - our builder quit the week before a load of materials were due to be delivered which we had paid for in advance (I know, I know...) however the LEI refused to deal with it as the original contract value was in excess of £6k - they said they will only get involved in disputes under that value.
We tried many angles to convince them to help, but all they would offer is a free legal advice helpline number.
I've gone down the small claims route, but also looking at the possibility of engaging the police as we have since found a number of other victims and it is looking more deliberate than just being incompetent.
I'll remember this when our insurance is due for renewal.
We tried many angles to convince them to help, but all they would offer is a free legal advice helpline number.
I've gone down the small claims route, but also looking at the possibility of engaging the police as we have since found a number of other victims and it is looking more deliberate than just being incompetent.
I'll remember this when our insurance is due for renewal.
Sounds like the LEI are spouting a load of s
t. Firstly, their primary consideration should be whether they have a real prospect of successfully pursuing the third party for the monies. Win or lose, their own costs won't be recoverable anyway as others have mentioned, the matter will be allocated to the small claims track. Notwithstanding that, given that there is a before the event insurance policy in place, their costs should be paid by the legal expenses insurer. The builder's costs shouldn't even be considered anyway as win or lose, he won't be able to make a recovery.
Just imagine a motor LEI tried to justify their actions under the same reasonings!
t. Firstly, their primary consideration should be whether they have a real prospect of successfully pursuing the third party for the monies. Win or lose, their own costs won't be recoverable anyway as others have mentioned, the matter will be allocated to the small claims track. Notwithstanding that, given that there is a before the event insurance policy in place, their costs should be paid by the legal expenses insurer. The builder's costs shouldn't even be considered anyway as win or lose, he won't be able to make a recovery.Just imagine a motor LEI tried to justify their actions under the same reasonings!
KungFuPanda said:
...given that there is a before the event insurance policy in place, their costs should be paid by the legal expenses insurer...
Exactamundo. That's exactly what you've insured for, the costs shouldn't come into it - only the "Realistic prospect of success".KungFuPanda said:
...Just imagine a motor LEI tried to justify their actions under the same reasonings!
In my case*, they did - hence why I no longer bother with them.AFAIC, LEI is a racket.
(*In the end I had to go down the Small Claims route and won, LEI were useless).
They aren't all bad. Three years ago I was doing some works to my drive which included putting some fence posts in between my neighbour and I.
Using a post hole shovel and suddenly there is a hissing noise. Investigation shows I have gone through the next door neighbours gas pipe. Transco come out and fix it and want to charge £750 for doing so. I complain on the grounds the gas pipe shouldnt be on my land but get nowhere. So I submit a claim under my building insurance.
They phone to say its not covered by your building insurance as its not yours, however as you have been negligent it is covered by your legal services poilcy, and even better for you there is no excess nor impact on future premiums, Result!
Must admit I can see lawyers chewing through £6,500 on your case. They and accountants are the professionals who have kept fee levels high, surveyors in the meantime had had a race to the bottom for fees
Using a post hole shovel and suddenly there is a hissing noise. Investigation shows I have gone through the next door neighbours gas pipe. Transco come out and fix it and want to charge £750 for doing so. I complain on the grounds the gas pipe shouldnt be on my land but get nowhere. So I submit a claim under my building insurance.
They phone to say its not covered by your building insurance as its not yours, however as you have been negligent it is covered by your legal services poilcy, and even better for you there is no excess nor impact on future premiums, Result!
Must admit I can see lawyers chewing through £6,500 on your case. They and accountants are the professionals who have kept fee levels high, surveyors in the meantime had had a race to the bottom for fees
Surely your first action should be a letter (before action) to the builder setting out you claim and the potential add on costs for going legal on his ass. Make sure you say something to the effect that this letter will be used as evidence in court that he had the option to settle for a much lesser amount much earlier in the proceedings. Also state he should not doubt your resolve to follow this through to the end even involving High Court bailiffs to recover the court awarded settlement.
Once he's calmed down he might see that his better option is to just pay up. Give him 7 days to forward his cheque. For the effort involved it has to be worth a try.
Once he's calmed down he might see that his better option is to just pay up. Give him 7 days to forward his cheque. For the effort involved it has to be worth a try.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff