legal representation concern ?after the event being blocked
Discussion
Hi all
I've had an awful experience from my legal expenses provider who is clearly acting on behalf of my house insurer to prevent customers using their legal expenses insurance when they have genuine claims.(I took out the add on legal expenses insurance with my home insurance)
As I realise I'm not going to get anywhere with the fraudulent legal expenses provider (who have messed me about big time), I've found I believe a professional law firm who have said they can represent me under a "no win no fee" arrangement.
However on reading the paperwork they have asked me to sign, they have highlighted to check I do not have insurance as "if you had legal cover when you entered in our conditional fee agreement this may compromise your ability to recover certain costs from the other side." (i.e. the defendant) .I think this may be because of a clause in the contract of the separate "After The Events" legal protection provider who underwrites the contract.( who I've had no dealings with)
I have informed the law firm of my previous bad experience and how the original legal expenses provider (joke), basically do everything in their power to stop you using your insurance.
The solicitors have said they will look into whether I can still go down the ATE route and come back to me.
I'm concerned by paying for legal expenses cover in good faith (and my claim being turned down by the legal expenses provider) my ability to get fair legal representation elsewhere with an After The Event contract may now be blocked
Can this happen?? seems grossly unfair. Has anyone had similar experiences?
Cheers
24/7
I've had an awful experience from my legal expenses provider who is clearly acting on behalf of my house insurer to prevent customers using their legal expenses insurance when they have genuine claims.(I took out the add on legal expenses insurance with my home insurance)
As I realise I'm not going to get anywhere with the fraudulent legal expenses provider (who have messed me about big time), I've found I believe a professional law firm who have said they can represent me under a "no win no fee" arrangement.
However on reading the paperwork they have asked me to sign, they have highlighted to check I do not have insurance as "if you had legal cover when you entered in our conditional fee agreement this may compromise your ability to recover certain costs from the other side." (i.e. the defendant) .I think this may be because of a clause in the contract of the separate "After The Events" legal protection provider who underwrites the contract.( who I've had no dealings with)
I have informed the law firm of my previous bad experience and how the original legal expenses provider (joke), basically do everything in their power to stop you using your insurance.
The solicitors have said they will look into whether I can still go down the ATE route and come back to me.
I'm concerned by paying for legal expenses cover in good faith (and my claim being turned down by the legal expenses provider) my ability to get fair legal representation elsewhere with an After The Event contract may now be blocked
Can this happen?? seems grossly unfair. Has anyone had similar experiences?
Cheers
24/7
Hi
Thanks for reading and sorry if I haven't been clear
I'm not suing any insurance companies. I have learn't I cant use my so called legal expenses insurance to fight a claim as they don't want to pay out , so I am choosing to take up my claim (that has nothing to do with insurance ) under a no win no fee arrangement. But I'm worried this won't be supported now because of problems I had with legal expenses provider ( which I paid for -approx £30 for legal insurance, on top of home insurance )
Thanks for reading and sorry if I haven't been clear
I'm not suing any insurance companies. I have learn't I cant use my so called legal expenses insurance to fight a claim as they don't want to pay out , so I am choosing to take up my claim (that has nothing to do with insurance ) under a no win no fee arrangement. But I'm worried this won't be supported now because of problems I had with legal expenses provider ( which I paid for -approx £30 for legal insurance, on top of home insurance )
Boring post alert 
Without knowing the specifics of the ATE insurance terms and conditions, it is not possible to give a definitive response. I have seen plenty of cases where a client has LEI cover, but for one reason or another opts for ATE insurance instead. This may, for example, be on the basis that the ATE Insurance cover has wider coverage, less restrictive terms and conditions, and/or a higher level of indemnity.
Your new solicitor should fully advise you of the position and tell you your options. The ATE insurance may have certain criteria that have to be met, most likely going to be linked to your case having sufficient prospects of success. A question when taking the insurance out could be, for example, whether insurance cover has previously been refused and/or whether LEI cover exists.
However, where a case has sufficient prospects of success, as generally assessed by your solicitor in reference to the available evidence, an ATE insurer can provide cover.
The type of ATE insurance cover can also differ between providers. For example, does the proposed policy cover your own legal costs, as well as your opponent’s legal costs and disbursements (third party payments) on both sides, or, more likely, is it restricted to disbursements and your opponent’s legal costs only?
Having such cover is generally not compulsory, unless your solicitor refuses to act under the CFA without such cover. If they could act for you without, you would then be accepting the legal costs risk yourself, so you would generally be advised against this. Also, without such cover, you may have to fund disbursements yourself as the claim progresses.
Since March 2013, the premium for ATE insurance has not been recoverable from the opponent in the event of a successful claim.
As you will not have paid a specific premium for the LEI (as it will have been paid in advance of knowing about the claim and exists as “before the event“ insurance), the downside of taking out ATE insurance is that a premium will be payable by you in the event of a successful claim. But, as above, the ATE insurance may have benefits that the LEI cover does not. And such a premium would not be payable by your opponent irrespective of whether or not you have LEI cover.
Prior to the March 2013 changes, you could in appropriate cases recover the premium of ATE insurance, provided you could demonstrate that you had taken all reasonable steps to determine that you did not have LEI cover available to you.
If the LEI cover was rejected on the basis of insufficient prospects of success, this is something that your new solicitor and any potential ATE insurance provider will likely want to carefully consider to assess the viability of your claim and therefore their own cost exposure. If this is the case and you believe the LEI provider got it wrong, you can outline your reasoning to your solicitor for them to consider and liaise with the ATE provider as appropriate.
As I say, your new solicitor should provide you with full advice in this regard to enable you to proceed.
Without knowing the specifics of the ATE insurance terms and conditions, it is not possible to give a definitive response. I have seen plenty of cases where a client has LEI cover, but for one reason or another opts for ATE insurance instead. This may, for example, be on the basis that the ATE Insurance cover has wider coverage, less restrictive terms and conditions, and/or a higher level of indemnity.
Your new solicitor should fully advise you of the position and tell you your options. The ATE insurance may have certain criteria that have to be met, most likely going to be linked to your case having sufficient prospects of success. A question when taking the insurance out could be, for example, whether insurance cover has previously been refused and/or whether LEI cover exists.
However, where a case has sufficient prospects of success, as generally assessed by your solicitor in reference to the available evidence, an ATE insurer can provide cover.
The type of ATE insurance cover can also differ between providers. For example, does the proposed policy cover your own legal costs, as well as your opponent’s legal costs and disbursements (third party payments) on both sides, or, more likely, is it restricted to disbursements and your opponent’s legal costs only?
Having such cover is generally not compulsory, unless your solicitor refuses to act under the CFA without such cover. If they could act for you without, you would then be accepting the legal costs risk yourself, so you would generally be advised against this. Also, without such cover, you may have to fund disbursements yourself as the claim progresses.
Since March 2013, the premium for ATE insurance has not been recoverable from the opponent in the event of a successful claim.
As you will not have paid a specific premium for the LEI (as it will have been paid in advance of knowing about the claim and exists as “before the event“ insurance), the downside of taking out ATE insurance is that a premium will be payable by you in the event of a successful claim. But, as above, the ATE insurance may have benefits that the LEI cover does not. And such a premium would not be payable by your opponent irrespective of whether or not you have LEI cover.
Prior to the March 2013 changes, you could in appropriate cases recover the premium of ATE insurance, provided you could demonstrate that you had taken all reasonable steps to determine that you did not have LEI cover available to you.
If the LEI cover was rejected on the basis of insufficient prospects of success, this is something that your new solicitor and any potential ATE insurance provider will likely want to carefully consider to assess the viability of your claim and therefore their own cost exposure. If this is the case and you believe the LEI provider got it wrong, you can outline your reasoning to your solicitor for them to consider and liaise with the ATE provider as appropriate.
As I say, your new solicitor should provide you with full advice in this regard to enable you to proceed.
Twentyfour7 said:
Hi all
I've had an awful experience from my legal expenses provider who is clearly acting on behalf of my house insurer to prevent customers using their legal expenses insurance when they have genuine claims.(I took out the add on legal expenses insurance with my home insurance)
As I realise I'm not going to get anywhere with the fraudulent legal expenses provider (who have messed me about big time), I've found I believe a professional law firm who have said they can represent me under a "no win no fee" arrangement.
However on reading the paperwork they have asked me to sign, they have highlighted to check I do not have insurance as "if you had legal cover when you entered in our conditional fee agreement this may compromise your ability to recover certain costs from the other side." (i.e. the defendant) .I think this may be because of a clause in the contract of the separate "After The Events" legal protection provider who underwrites the contract.( who I've had no dealings with)
I have informed the law firm of my previous bad experience and how the original legal expenses provider (joke), basically do everything in their power to stop you using your insurance.
The solicitors have said they will look into whether I can still go down the ATE route and come back to me.
I'm concerned by paying for legal expenses cover in good faith (and my claim being turned down by the legal expenses provider) my ability to get fair legal representation elsewhere with an After The Event contract may now be blocked
Can this happen?? seems grossly unfair. Has anyone had similar experiences?
Cheers
24/7
One insurance company has had your case reviewed and decided that it doesn't meet the threshold for success (Usually 51 percent). Your reputable firm will incur costs, insuring against losing, based on their assement of success. This is obviously an order of magnitude more expensive than conventional, before the event insurance. I've had an awful experience from my legal expenses provider who is clearly acting on behalf of my house insurer to prevent customers using their legal expenses insurance when they have genuine claims.(I took out the add on legal expenses insurance with my home insurance)
As I realise I'm not going to get anywhere with the fraudulent legal expenses provider (who have messed me about big time), I've found I believe a professional law firm who have said they can represent me under a "no win no fee" arrangement.
However on reading the paperwork they have asked me to sign, they have highlighted to check I do not have insurance as "if you had legal cover when you entered in our conditional fee agreement this may compromise your ability to recover certain costs from the other side." (i.e. the defendant) .I think this may be because of a clause in the contract of the separate "After The Events" legal protection provider who underwrites the contract.( who I've had no dealings with)
I have informed the law firm of my previous bad experience and how the original legal expenses provider (joke), basically do everything in their power to stop you using your insurance.
The solicitors have said they will look into whether I can still go down the ATE route and come back to me.
I'm concerned by paying for legal expenses cover in good faith (and my claim being turned down by the legal expenses provider) my ability to get fair legal representation elsewhere with an After The Event contract may now be blocked
Can this happen?? seems grossly unfair. Has anyone had similar experiences?
Cheers
24/7
The second insurers may want a tie breaker opinion, which, being no insurance in place, someone would have to pay for and hope the court will also order the defendant to cover that, which may all be subject to the cap anyway. There is usually an appeal process, with the original insurers, which often looks like an external opinion so why pay for ATE?
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 3rd March 22:06
Most insurers, especially ATE insurers, look for a sixty percent chance of success, and won't proceed unless a lawyer that the insurer trusts opines that the claim is at least 60/40. Some look for 65/34. OP, you may think that your case is a sure thing, but (1) no case is, and (2) you are not always the best judge of your own case.
As noted above, however, if you are super confident of your case, fund it yourself, or seek a litigation funder. The costs of litigation funding and of ATE insurance are high, but that is because it's a risky business. With a 60/40 case, in 40 out of 100 parallel universes, you lose.
There is, I repeat, no such thing as a sure thing in litigation.
As noted above, however, if you are super confident of your case, fund it yourself, or seek a litigation funder. The costs of litigation funding and of ATE insurance are high, but that is because it's a risky business. With a 60/40 case, in 40 out of 100 parallel universes, you lose.
There is, I repeat, no such thing as a sure thing in litigation.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 6th March 00:49
Legal expenses insurers are notorious for wriggling out of claims. This is because most of them are really marketing schemes for solicitors who pay substantial amounts of money to be on their panels.
So you ring your LEI and they will assess whether or not it’s a case that the solicitors can make money from. If there's no money in it (for example it's a small claim, where no costs can be recovered) none of the panel solicitors will want it, so the LEI will do their best to get out of it, even if it’s a very strong case.
If it's a case where there is a profit to be made they will insist that one of their panel solicitors deals with it - after all, that’s what the solicitors are paying for. But if they can't sort it out, so that you need to go to court, you then have the legal right to insist on using your own solicitor.
Most people are unaware of this, and just accept that they have to use the LEI appointed solicitor. This is often a mistake, as they are serving two masters - you and the LEI - and they won't want to upset the LEI by risking the loss of a case, when your own solicitor might be willing to do so.
ATE insurance is a very poor second, simply because ATE premiums are often expensive, and you have to pay them yourself if the claim's successful, so you will lose a good chunk of your compensation. Even worse, the solicitor will be charging a success fee, and that also comes out of your compensation, so you could easily end up losing more than half the money recovered.
What sort of claim is it? If a solicitor’s willing to accept it on a CFA then it must have some merit. If it’s basically a good claim with a good chance of success you should challenge your LEI's decision, instead of just accepting it.
Initially you need to go through their formal complaints procedure and if that doesn't work go to the Financial Ombudsman. The FO has overturned many such decisions, and unless there’s some desperate urgency about your claim there’s a good chance that this route will work, so that you’ll get free representation and end up keeping all your compensation.
So you ring your LEI and they will assess whether or not it’s a case that the solicitors can make money from. If there's no money in it (for example it's a small claim, where no costs can be recovered) none of the panel solicitors will want it, so the LEI will do their best to get out of it, even if it’s a very strong case.
If it's a case where there is a profit to be made they will insist that one of their panel solicitors deals with it - after all, that’s what the solicitors are paying for. But if they can't sort it out, so that you need to go to court, you then have the legal right to insist on using your own solicitor.
Most people are unaware of this, and just accept that they have to use the LEI appointed solicitor. This is often a mistake, as they are serving two masters - you and the LEI - and they won't want to upset the LEI by risking the loss of a case, when your own solicitor might be willing to do so.
ATE insurance is a very poor second, simply because ATE premiums are often expensive, and you have to pay them yourself if the claim's successful, so you will lose a good chunk of your compensation. Even worse, the solicitor will be charging a success fee, and that also comes out of your compensation, so you could easily end up losing more than half the money recovered.
What sort of claim is it? If a solicitor’s willing to accept it on a CFA then it must have some merit. If it’s basically a good claim with a good chance of success you should challenge your LEI's decision, instead of just accepting it.
Initially you need to go through their formal complaints procedure and if that doesn't work go to the Financial Ombudsman. The FO has overturned many such decisions, and unless there’s some desperate urgency about your claim there’s a good chance that this route will work, so that you’ll get free representation and end up keeping all your compensation.
Thank you very much everybody for your contributions, I’m very grateful to you for taking the time to reply and giving me your thoughts
Cudd Wudd ….
Thank you very much
Here are some extracts from the ATE contract
If you win your claim, you pay our basic charges and a success fee…… In addition you are responsible for payment throughout your claim of any expenses which we have to incur on your behalf….
The success fee in your case has been agreed at 100% of basic charges
…
The amount of the success the, (inclusive of any success fee payable to barrister or to another legal representative and VAT) that we will ask you to pay from your damages will not be more than 25% of the total of your general damages and past financial losses…
The success of the (inclusive of VAT) is subject to a maximum limit is 25% of your
1. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity
2. Damages for pecuniary loss, other than future pecuniary loss
these arrangements will allow you to retain at least 75% of your damages
…The premium is £997 plus insurance premium tax. The cover that the policy provides is £100,000….
…If you are successful then I would endeavour to recover as much of the premium as I can from the defendants but if I do not recover the entire premium you would not be required to pay more than £100 plus IPT…
…If you are ordered to pay your opponents costs , these will be insured by your after the event insurance policy so you will not be required to pay them..
..If you win overall but on the way lose at an interim hearing, you may be required to pay your opponents charges of the hearing, usually only up to the amount of damages and interest awarded to you. We have arranged for these adverse interim costs orders to be insured under your insurance policy so this will mean that you can keep as much of your damages as possible….
Pro Bono
Thank you very much
It’s a clinical negligence claim
I recently made a complaint to the LEI and have been told that it takes 8 weeks to investigate it. They are doing everything they can to stall and be difficult. I have also made a complaint to my home insurer and have been told “you have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman service, but you must do so within 6 months of the date of this letter”.
Time is getting away and these delays could impact on time I have left to submit a claim
Can I contact the Financial Ombudsman now about my home insurer and LEI?
Cudd Wudd ….
Thank you very much
Here are some extracts from the ATE contract
If you win your claim, you pay our basic charges and a success fee…… In addition you are responsible for payment throughout your claim of any expenses which we have to incur on your behalf….
The success fee in your case has been agreed at 100% of basic charges
…
The amount of the success the, (inclusive of any success fee payable to barrister or to another legal representative and VAT) that we will ask you to pay from your damages will not be more than 25% of the total of your general damages and past financial losses…
The success of the (inclusive of VAT) is subject to a maximum limit is 25% of your
1. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity
2. Damages for pecuniary loss, other than future pecuniary loss
these arrangements will allow you to retain at least 75% of your damages
…The premium is £997 plus insurance premium tax. The cover that the policy provides is £100,000….
…If you are successful then I would endeavour to recover as much of the premium as I can from the defendants but if I do not recover the entire premium you would not be required to pay more than £100 plus IPT…
…If you are ordered to pay your opponents costs , these will be insured by your after the event insurance policy so you will not be required to pay them..
..If you win overall but on the way lose at an interim hearing, you may be required to pay your opponents charges of the hearing, usually only up to the amount of damages and interest awarded to you. We have arranged for these adverse interim costs orders to be insured under your insurance policy so this will mean that you can keep as much of your damages as possible….
Pro Bono
Thank you very much
It’s a clinical negligence claim
I recently made a complaint to the LEI and have been told that it takes 8 weeks to investigate it. They are doing everything they can to stall and be difficult. I have also made a complaint to my home insurer and have been told “you have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman service, but you must do so within 6 months of the date of this letter”.
Time is getting away and these delays could impact on time I have left to submit a claim
Can I contact the Financial Ombudsman now about my home insurer and LEI?
Hello, best of luck with your case.
The text you have copied is extracted from the retainer pack issued by your new solicitor, rather than the specific terms and conditions of the ATE policy itself. The policy should set out its coverage in terms of what it does and what it does not cover, but it sounds as though it is a policy for the defendant’s fees and disbursements.
As they have said the premium will be capped at £100 plus IPT, which is currently 12%, the total outlay of say £112 for up to £100,000 of cover seems very reasonable, provided the coverage does what is needed (if required and hopefully not!).
The success fee is something that underpins the conditional fee agreement. It takes into account various factors, including the prospect that, should the claim not win at all, the solicitors will not be paid anything (subject to a very comprehensive ATE insurance policy, which is not that usual IME). Or they may not been paid for certain aspects, e.g, beyond expiration of certain settlement offers if the end result is not as favourable. It also takes into account that, even if the case does succeed, the likelihood is that the solicitors will not be paid until beyond the very end, which can be a long time. The success fee therefore takes into account that aspect as well. As stated, it is calculated in reference to the actual fees they incur in bringing the case and then capped in reference to the specifics of the case itself.
With LEI, you may well have 100% compensation guarantee and no specific premium to pay, as you have already paid it. But the ‘cheapest’ option is not always the best. In reality, you are never going to know which of the two firms will achieve the best outcome to make that comparison. But you’ve not had a great experience with the LEI provider so far.
It is common for the compensation guarantee under a conditional fee agreement to be set at 75%. If a claim is high value, it is not out of the question for that compensation guarantee to be set higher. You could always ask the question before signing the retainer, but some firms will not budge on this at all due to the risks involved (chances of not establishing liability) and/or perceived value of the case, which can then be reflected in the level of fees that are recovered.
Self funding (private paying) would avoid the success fee too, but you’d likely need deep pockets and a lot of confidence in your case (being objective is not easy here) to make that something to contemplate, and I’d be surprised if any solicitor you spoke with thought this was the best option even in a sure fire case (which doesn’t exist).
Hope it works out for you, including (most importantly) your recovery.
The text you have copied is extracted from the retainer pack issued by your new solicitor, rather than the specific terms and conditions of the ATE policy itself. The policy should set out its coverage in terms of what it does and what it does not cover, but it sounds as though it is a policy for the defendant’s fees and disbursements.
As they have said the premium will be capped at £100 plus IPT, which is currently 12%, the total outlay of say £112 for up to £100,000 of cover seems very reasonable, provided the coverage does what is needed (if required and hopefully not!).
The success fee is something that underpins the conditional fee agreement. It takes into account various factors, including the prospect that, should the claim not win at all, the solicitors will not be paid anything (subject to a very comprehensive ATE insurance policy, which is not that usual IME). Or they may not been paid for certain aspects, e.g, beyond expiration of certain settlement offers if the end result is not as favourable. It also takes into account that, even if the case does succeed, the likelihood is that the solicitors will not be paid until beyond the very end, which can be a long time. The success fee therefore takes into account that aspect as well. As stated, it is calculated in reference to the actual fees they incur in bringing the case and then capped in reference to the specifics of the case itself.
With LEI, you may well have 100% compensation guarantee and no specific premium to pay, as you have already paid it. But the ‘cheapest’ option is not always the best. In reality, you are never going to know which of the two firms will achieve the best outcome to make that comparison. But you’ve not had a great experience with the LEI provider so far.
It is common for the compensation guarantee under a conditional fee agreement to be set at 75%. If a claim is high value, it is not out of the question for that compensation guarantee to be set higher. You could always ask the question before signing the retainer, but some firms will not budge on this at all due to the risks involved (chances of not establishing liability) and/or perceived value of the case, which can then be reflected in the level of fees that are recovered.
Self funding (private paying) would avoid the success fee too, but you’d likely need deep pockets and a lot of confidence in your case (being objective is not easy here) to make that something to contemplate, and I’d be surprised if any solicitor you spoke with thought this was the best option even in a sure fire case (which doesn’t exist).
Hope it works out for you, including (most importantly) your recovery.
I can understand why you think your home insurer is trying to block you however the timescales they've given are regulatory timescales given by the FCA &FOS regulations. If you already have a letter from your insurer saying you have 6 months to go to FOS then get your case logged at FOS ASAP - it doesn't cost you anything. After 6 months you become time barred and have no access to FOS.
If you already have a complaint in at your LEI who are investigating then 8 weeks is the max amount of time they have. They should be much quicker than that. Complaints handlers will be trying to resolve your complaint as quickly as possible and if they're doing their job properly it's unlikely FOS will overturn that outcome.
If you already have a complaint in at your LEI who are investigating then 8 weeks is the max amount of time they have. They should be much quicker than that. Complaints handlers will be trying to resolve your complaint as quickly as possible and if they're doing their job properly it's unlikely FOS will overturn that outcome.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff