My month in Bristol at the ARAG UK

Hi I’m Kilian, a 17 year old student from Germany. I had the great opportunity to spend a month abroad in the lovely city of Bristol and in the great company of ARAG UK.

I lived in a nice apartment and met many interesting and nice Bristolian people. Apart from my internship, I really enjoyed exploring the city and visiting the typical sights of Bristol like the Suspension Bridge and the SS Great Britain.
Of course I also enjoyed the Bristolian Night Life which is quite similar to the scene in Germany. In my view Bristol really deserves it to be mentioned as one of the best places to live in the UK!

During my working experience at ARAG I received various impressions of the insurance business in the UK, about the market, the competition and the work with solicitors and brokers.
Besides the great knowledge that was given to me, I was really impressed by the working environment which exists in the company. It is very different to what I expected a usual working environment to be because of the very friendly relationships between the managers and their employees.

An event which will stick in my mind forever happened in my second week when one of the managers went round his department asking his employees whether he could make them something to drink. Although this was just a small gesture I think is what actually shapes a good working environment. I really appreciated the way the guys treated me with respect and patience while sharing their knowledge with me and how they worked together as a team instead of focussing on their own business.

Referring to the above, the four weeks I spent in Bristol and at ARAG have gone very fast and I can look back to many kind people, many funny and interesting chats and overall a very nice and exciting time, which I will always remember.

I want to say thank you to everyone who was involved in my little journey and who made it an unforgettable event.

Looking forward to seeing some of you again sometime.

Thank you!
Kilian

Putting the record straight on Legal Expenses Insurance

It's difficult to know where to start to unravel the myths and prejudice that are portrayed in Jessica Brown's article "Does £25 a year really get you 'your own lawyer’?" which the Telegraph published on May 7th http://bit.ly/1ESpLqd

However, as an award- winning legal expenses insurance provider, we would like to try to provide  a more accurate impression of our products.

The stated objective of the article is to expose what the writer refers to as "loopholes and exclusions", the effect of which is to leave readers with an unbalanced and negative view of legal expenses insurance (LEI) without understanding its advantages. It is disappointing that the writer appears not to have even read a legal expenses policy herself and has largely based her understanding on hearsay without giving consideration to the detriment experienced by those who become involved in a legal dispute and who do not have a LEI policy to claim against.

The value of products does not solely rest on the sum of legal costs individuals can claim for but on the opportunity the insurance provides to obtain fair damages and compensation or to obtain other legal remedy where legal rights have been breached.

Policy cover

The account of what legal expenses policies typically cover is muddled. In the main the writer focuses on Family Legal Protection, although the quote at the end of the piece from "Go-compare" refers to motor uninsured loss recovery which is a different product that is sold with motor insurance rather than home insurance. While we agree that the quality and scope of coverage varies depending on the provider, policies give consumers the confidence to protect their legal rights arising from a number of areas of dispute. The article fails to mention significant additional services such as telephone legal and tax advice helplines and access to websites that allow customers to download legal documents – such as a free will. These services can benefit policyholders who don't need to claim and their value inevitably exceeds the typical £25 premium.

Costly legal environment

Savage cuts to legal aid that were introduced in the Legal Aid, Punishment and Sentencing of Offenders Act, recent significant increases to court fees and changes to rules on recoverability of success fees and After-the-Event insurance premiums make Before-the-Event LEI better value than ever before. Insured claimants will not lose a chunk of their damages in order to pay their solicitors' fees - which would otherwise be the case and neither are they obliged to take out expensive loans to fund disbursements such as medical reports for personal injury claims, or employment tribunal fees which may be up to £1,200.

The use of panel law firms

The various law firms' comments which are quoted in the article are motivated by their own self-interest since these firms have not been selected to sit on LEI panels. All legal expenses insurers throughout Europe comply with legislation which allows a claimant to choose their own solicitor when proceedings need to be issued. The law may not work well for non- panel law firms, however it gives rights to both policyholders and insurers and protects policyholders from the effect of significantly higher premiums that would be needed to insure the risk were non-panel firms able to insist on charging insurers exorbitant levels of fees.

LEI panel solicitors are selected for their expertise in matters covered by policies and their service levels are monitored and audited. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and courts acknowledge that individuals who appoint a panel solicitor firm do not suffer detriment and there is no empirical evidence to support the allegation that panel-solicitor cases result in poorer-than-average outcomes. The FOS gives further detail about the use of panel solicitors in its technical note.http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/legal-expenses.html. 

We refute Mr Peter's assertion that LEI providers employ unqualified staff to handle claims.

Complaints

Regarding complaints to the FOS about legal expenses insurance – of course every single complaint is one too many – whether or not it is justified. We would put the figure quoted into context by clarifying that complaints about legal expenses (upheld or not) made up just 0.17% of complaints reviewed by the FOS in the April 2013/14. 

Prospects of success

The requirement that claims should have a 51% or greater prospect of success is no different from the merits test that is applied to state funding for legal aid. It is not in a litigant's best interest to pursue or defend a case that they are unlikely to win and the courts take a very dim view of spurious, unreasonable, disproportionate or vexatious litigation. Again the FOS has some further notes about this on their website. They point out that cases can only be assessed on the information available to the insurer at the time and some cases will be likely to fail due to lack of evidence, legal obstacles or because there is no known cause of action. 

Similarly, we find it nothing short of bizarre that Ms. Ford comments "So if a 'reasonable’ settlement is offered, insurers will often threaten to withdraw people’s cover if they do not accept it". Surely to refuse a reasonable offer is both ill-advised and not in keeping with the spirit of the Civil Procedure Rules, so why would anybody criticise a policy encouraging the acceptance of reasonable offers? 

Solicitors who act under no-win, no-fee agreements set the bar higher than the 51% chance of success insisted on by legal expenses providers. It is disingenuous to imply that solicitors take on cases without reasonable prospects of success when acting under no-win, no-fee agreements as such a tactic would result in commercial suicide.  Those who do so when engaged on an hourly rate are raising false expectations while lining their own pockets and should be challenged. Solicitors have a duty of care and must act in the client's best interest when advising on merits and the value of a claim. Where policyholders disagree with an opinion LEI policies will often provide for further advice to be sought.

Method of sale

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is currently consulting about how add-on insurance products should be sold. We share their view that a greater customer awareness of products which allows informed customer decisions at the point of sale is to be strived for. We do not allow our distributors to offer ARAG products by opting-out. Since the FCA's 2013 Thematic Review of Motor Legal.

The consequences of relying on unqualified representation.

Here's an example of why it's so important for customers to have Family Legal Protection.

In Sterling v United Learning Trust the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed that an employment tribunal had been right to reject a claim that did not have the correct early conciliation number recorded on it. This case should serve as a reminder of the consequences that can follow when individuals do not have access to qualified lawyers.

The employee was represented by an unqualified person. Four days before the deadline for making the claim the tribunal inferred that her employment tribunal claim form (ET1 form) was missing some digits from the EC number. The form was returned to her by the tribunal office two days later, with an accompanying letter. The address cited by the office was neither that of her representative nor her home. It ultimately arrived at a neighbour's house and the employee re-submitted straight away, albeit out of time.

The employee appealed against the rejection however the EAT determined that Employment Tribunal rules oblige the employment tribunal to reject a claim if the EC number is missing, although a party may apply for a reconsideration of such a rejection. In this case the employee's representative did not apply for reconsideration, and even though he was not legally qualified the EAT said the employment tribunal was entitled to conclude that no such application was forthcoming.

The representative also failed to argue that it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to have lodged the claim in time. The EAT dismissed the employee's challenge to this aspect of the judgement, making it clear that the burden was on her to prove that it was not reasonably practicable and that even if the point had not been argued originally there was a duty on the employee to ensure that the EC number was cited correctly.