Caunce O'Hara Legal Expenses Insurance

[FiddlersGreen]

Why do you insure your car above and beyond the legal minimum requirement of 3rd party? Car insurance companies make a profit and payout much less than the money they bring in - it would therefore be better to save the money and payout to replace your own car in the event of a crash. Unless of course you see some value in paying the extra few hundred quid a year and not having to worry about finding x amount in the event that you crash.

Exactly right BUT car insurance is competitive and the difference is much smaller.

[FiddlersGreen]

It's not just about insurance for me. It's about all the other benefits I get too from having one organisation that represents me and what I do.

Fair enough. As long as you don't join based on very dodgy advice about the insurance and then don't understand the terms and conditions.

[malvolio]

Fair enough. As long as you don't join based on very dodgy advice about the insurance and then don't understand the terms and conditions.

Such as?

[SueEllen]

Exactly right BUT car insurance is competitive and the difference is much smaller.

Car insurance is a bad comparison because it's compulsory unless you have a "few" thousand pounds to lodge at the Bank of England.

Our insurance is optional which means we have a specialist market, so much less competition. At least we have at least 5 providers who will give us relevant insurance, some professions are stuck with a couple.

I hope never to need my contents insurance, which is again optional, but I have it just in case a freak or malicious event occurs. I haven't yet in all the years I've had it made a claim.

[Dylan]

Only 3rd party is compulsory hence me being specific about it. Agree that the markets are different though.

[TheFaQQer]

malvolia/TheFAQQer - have you checked?

No

[TheFaQQer]

(which seems to be the typical level of you and other IPSE experts)

Where are these IPSE experts that post on CUK?

[TheFaQQer]

The point is that almost all members* would be better off saving the money and buying the professional advice when the worst happened.

* I'm beginning to think I have completely overestimated the sense of most members so I may be completely wrong.

If the cost of an investigation came in at £10k, then you would have needed to be an IPSE+ member for more than 40 years to be worse off.

If you don't think you'll be investigated, or be sick, or be called up for jury duty, or have any kind of tax query, or have a client go bust, or have an agency go bust, then the insurance offering is a waste of money and you'd be better off not being a member.

I'm not there for the IR35 cover, and never have been, though.