I read with interest the letter from Paul Asplin, the chief executive officer of DAS UK Group I agree with what Mr Asplin said concerning the judgment in Eschig not affecting the position of already-compliant legal expenses insurers.

I do not agree, however, with his comment that policy-holders can continue to benefit by taking advantage of the lower costs of panel law firms. In my experience, when non-panel firms carry out work for certain legal insurers, they are only entitled to charge at a very low hourly rate compared with panel law firms which can charge at a higher rate.

It is also becoming apparent that legal expenses insurers, especially in employment tribunal cases when there is a strict time limit within which a claim must be brought, are delaying confirmation of cover where the insured wishes to use a non-panel law firm to commence the claim. This causes all kinds of problems for the insured; both in relation to the insured’s freedom of choice, and also having to decide whether to use the non-panel law firm initially on a privately funded basis, or use the panel firm and then change to the non-panel firm. I cannot see a valid reason for the distinction between legal advice and issuing proceedings and advice prior to the issue of proceedings for legal expenses insurance cover.

Guy Salter, partner, March and Edwards, Worcester