I found to my cost that despite paying for this extra cover, you are not actually the client... the insurance company is the client and if they instruct the legal team not to bother pursuing a claim then it falls outside the cover and you have to fund it yourself... so pretty pointless I say.
This is true to some extent - However, I used them some years ago to recover the cost of damage caused to me by a third party, where the cost of repairs was below my excess.
My insurer didn't pay out as the damage was pretty trivial.
But the legal assistance which I had bought as an add-on to my policy contacted me to offer their assistance.
The solicitor was brilliant.
(Not always the case, in my experience)
With my evidence (including photographic evidence of the damage) he pursued the third party.
After 18 months of stone-walling and blatant lieing by the other driver, the solicitor issued proceedings, which the other party did not contest in court.
We obtained a default judgement in our favour.
I got paid out in full.
I assume that the other party copped for the costs of the proceedings and the solicitor's costs as well.
The sticking point would be (as in many compensation claims) that you don't issue proceedings unless you consider that there is a better than 50 per cent chance of success.
If we had lost, the insurance company would have picked up the solicitor's costs and the court costs.
So, it is only reasonable that the insurance company should have the right to veto a hopeless claim.
No complaints here.
Johnsco
