IPSE/QDos renewal, IR35 insurance seems sketchy

[NibblyPig]

It's all up for renewal. Current I have liability insurance with QDos and IPSE+ membership

QDos have the new IR35 product offering representation & payment of all fees if found inside. However it says they won't represent you unless a) they think they'll win, and b) you haven't deliberately violated IR35.

Since they offer unlimited contract reviews now, I get the feeling you're shooting yourself in the foot if they review a contract and say it's not perfect, and the client won't change it. Because now you've demonstrated that you know that your contract may be in violation.

I kinda feel like that's the point, whereas if it passes, you don't really need the paying all your fines part of the insurance.

Anyone else feel the same way? I think I might stick with IPSE+ for IR35 purposes. Because although I would like peace of mind with taxes and fees, the policy wording doesn't fill me with hope that I'd get it. Namely these sections:

Unless we're gonna win you're on your own:

Professional fees will only be covered under this Policy if incurred with the insurer’s prior consent.
The insurer will give consent in writing or by telephone provided that there are reasonable grounds for representation of
the policyholder and provided that the insurer is satisfied that there are reasonable prospects of the policyholder
achieving a satisfactory outcome in the enquiry or dispute and that it is reasonable to incur professional fees.

If you knew your contract wasn't airtight when reviewed, you're on your own:

This Policy Will Not Cover

Where any circumstances of a claim are known of at the inception of this Policy or the time a policyholder was
declared for inclusion under this Policy about which the policyholder or appointed consultant knew or ought
reasonably to have known was likely to give rise to a claim under this policy.

Am I just being paranoid?

[SimonMac]

I am sure the IPSE people will be here soon, the summary of the argument is that IPSE have paid out on their polices, while QDOS have not yet had to as they have not lost a case.

[Fred Bloggs]

A little unfair. QDOS have paid out, IE defending cases. As far as I know, they haven't paid taxes due because they haven't lost yet. FTAO - I'm in IPSE+.

[Qdos Contractor]

Hi there

Perfectly valid and common questions. To confirm:

• The TLC35 policy is not offered based on (or in any way reliant on) your written contract

• The 'prospects of success' clause is standard in insurance wordings. In reality it is highly unlikely it would ever be enacted at the outset for standard HMRC/IR35 enquiries

• The 'policy will not cover' excerpt is more about knowledge of any existing HMRC action, i.e. you were already under enquiry when you took out the policy

As I've said before, if we rejected claims or refused to cover someone it would quickly be common knowledge.

Any further questions please let me know.

[SimonMac]

A little unfair. QDOS have paid out, IE defending cases. As far as I know, they haven't paid taxes due because they haven't lost yet. FTAO - I'm in IPSE+.

edited, my apologies to QDOS (I am a QDOS customer) so can't fault them with the dealings I have had so far

[northernladuk]

Hi there

Perfectly valid and common questions. To confirm:

• The TLC35 policy is not offered based on (or in any way reliant on) your written contract

• The 'prospects of success' clause is standard in insurance wordings. In reality it is highly unlikely it would ever be enacted at the outset for standard HMRC/IR35 enquiries

• The 'policy will not cover' excerpt is more about knowledge of any existing HMRC action, i.e. you were already under enquiry when you took out the policy

As I've said before, if we rejected claims or refused to cover someone it would quickly be common knowledge.

Any further questions please let me know.

Is there any you will ever charge on a risk basis? Why should I pay as much as the contractor next toe who's been here 5 years, hasn't seen a work schedule for 3 if them and just does the work the client gives? I'm far less risk than them.

Or is it so easy to fight a case you know you will win so no need to categorise using risk?

[Qdos Contractor]

Is there any you will ever charge on a risk basis? Why should I pay as much as the contractor next toe who's been here 5 years, hasn't seen a work schedule for 3 if them and just does the work the client gives? I'm far less risk than them.

Or is it so easy to fight a case you know you will win so no need to categorise using risk?

It would be very difficult to accurately rate individual applications on their overall prospects. The strongest looking case could be jeopardised by something unexpected (end client involvement etc) 6 months into an enquiry, and vice versa. Any initial risk assessment or contract review is only ever a starting point: IR35 enquiries delve a lot deeper and the individual case profile/outlook can change shape dramatically as an investigation goes on.

I know our win/loss ratio may suggest otherwise, but it's certainly not easy to fight a case.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Is there any you will ever charge on a risk basis? Why should I pay as much as the contractor next toe who's been here 5 years, hasn't seen a work schedule for 3 if them and just does the work the client gives? I'm far less risk than them.

Or is it so easy to fight a case you know you will win so no need to categorise using risk?

Been on the sauce love

[NibblyPig]

Hi there

Perfectly valid and common questions. To confirm:

• The TLC35 policy is not offered based on (or in any way reliant on) your written contract

• The 'prospects of success' clause is standard in insurance wordings. In reality it is highly unlikely it would ever be enacted at the outset for standard HMRC/IR35 enquiries

• The 'policy will not cover' excerpt is more about knowledge of any existing HMRC action, i.e. you were already under enquiry when you took out the policy

As I've said before, if we rejected claims or refused to cover someone it would quickly be common knowledge.

Any further questions please let me know.

Rule #1 of insurance is never trust anything that isn't written into a contract. Nothing personal. I can praise all the insurance companies I've worked with that I've never claimed from, but 100% of those I have have tried to shaft me over in various ways, often due to the small print. While it is easy to make those claims now, when faced with £50,000 worth of costs any insurance company will try to wriggle out of it, as I have seen so many times.

You get a feel for it when you argue with an insurance company that doesn't want to pay out for someone who "failed to notify them prior to seeking medical attention" after collapsing and being rushed to hospital abroad and having bills over 100,000 euros...

If it covers regardless of contract, why do the free contract reviews?

[northernladuk]

Been on the sauce love

Whoooaaa... Who's let you out your box today??!!!! :|