Report comment

Anon 4.39 pm. LV don't have an ABS - maybe have a look at the story on Legal Futures which makes that pretty clear. DLG, Saga, RSA, eSure, Admiral, Ageas all do of course.

But on the question of the SCT increase, is It not a possible solution which would address issues around 'access to justice' to make BTE legal expenses insurance covering all passengers in a vehicle a compulsory part of motor insurance? Rules could require that the legal expenses insurer was not 'linked' to the motor insurer (similar approach to MedCo). Unlike now legal expenses insurance premiums would need to be set at a level which would pay for representation in the SCT with no costs recovery - currently of course underwriters know they are not going to have to pay many legal costs as costs will be recovered from the at fault insurer.

This would continue to allow claimants to be professionally represented and allow the PI legal sector to continue to provide that service. Yes costs would be reduced because the solicitors would only be able to recover from the BTE insurers at their agreed panel rates and there could be no CFA or DBA agreement with the claimant. So it would still change the PI sector but it would continue to allow access to justice for claimants which is its purpose isn't it?

It would also however go some way towards achieving government policy goals by taking away the incentives that exist at the gutter end of the industry to chase, farm and fabricate claims knowing that there's money in it for them. If any potential claimant had legal expenses insurance to provide them with legal representation there would be no need for that kind of activity. And we might get back to where we all want to be which is representing people with genuine claims.

This post is just trying to prompt genuine debate by the way so I would be grateful if people could refrain from calling me stupid or an internet troll if they think I've got it wrong or disagree!