Larsen Howie vs QDOS vs IPSE Larsen Howie vs QDOS vs IPSE - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    I keep playing with the idea of switching but I would put up a word of caution against QDOS. They want you to subject yourself to statements such as :

    You are able to exercise a Right of Substitution

    A Right of Substitution allows you to provide suitable substitute personnel to carry out the services for your company if you are unable to do so personally. Your client may retain the right to reject a substitute on reasonable grounds relating to their suitability to provide the services required. Your company must also remain responsible for payment of any substitute. You are under no obligation to exercise your right of substitution, however the right must exist in practice – a written right of substitution in your contract is not sufficient unless it would be honoured by your client.
    Now in reality most of us have this in our contracts but less of us know for certain the client would accept a sub. If you go with QDOS it seems you are taking a risk in this area.

    Abbey / Merkel Tax ask me this and I answer it honestly - I have the right in my contract. That is all I state as that is all I know and it never fails a review on this basis. If I come to claim, I have not lied. If I went with QDOS I would feel I would have to ensure it and even then if the client change their mind or was dishonest I would be exposed. So I question the wisdom of just jumping on the QDOS bandwagon.... It needs serious thought.

    Be very mindful of just agreeing to the blanket statements and opting for the basic contract reviews which are included. Seems like you could trip yourself up.

    If you was 100% sure of anything to do with IR35 then you wouldn’t need the tax loss insurance. Sadly we all operate in different shades of gray - well the vast majority of us.
    Last edited by dx4100; 10th October 2019 at 09:58.

  2. #12

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueSharp View Post
    Why is it not straight forward?
    But it is, just go QDOS!

  3. #13

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dx4100 View Post
    I keep playing with the idea of switching but I would put up a word of caution against QDOS. They want you to subject yourself to statements such as :



    Now in reality most of us have this in our contracts but less of us know for certain the client would accept a sub. If you go with QDOS it seems you are taking a risk in this area.

    Abbey / Merkel Tax ask me this and I answer it honestly - I have the right in my contract. That is all I state as that is all I know and it never fails. If I come to claim, I have not lied. If I went with QDOS I would feel I would have to ensure it and even then if the client change their mind or was dishonest I would be exposed. So I question the wisdom of just jumping on the QDOS bandwagon.... It needs serious thought.

    Be very mindful of just agreeing to the blanket statements and opting for the basic contract reviews which are included. Seems like you could trip yourself up.

    If you was 100% sure of anything to do with IR35 then you wouldn’t need the tax loss insurance. Sadly we all operate in different shades of gray - well the vast majority of us.
    They insure you based on 4 basic statement principles. However, when called upon they have a "prospects of Success Review" clause and basically can turn around and say we won't take on your case. It's probably why their successful rates are so high as they cherry pick the cases they know they will win and drop the ones they don't think they will win like hot potatoes.

    Really, what they should be doing is almost the reverse. Insuring you on a hypothetical prospects of success review on the basis of your working practises with your client (signed by the client too). That way, anyone who has been paying premiums for years with them thinking they are insured and when called upon don't know if they will actually have their case backed isn't misled and has lost thousands in premiums and then has to fund the case themselves and probably go bankrupt.

  4. #14

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dx4100 View Post
    I keep playing with the idea of switching but I would put up a word of caution against QDOS. They want you to subject yourself to statements such as :



    Now in reality most of us have this in our contracts but less of us know for certain the client would accept a sub. If you go with QDOS it seems you are taking a risk in this area.

    Abbey / Merkel Tax ask me this and I answer it honestly - I have the right in my contract. That is all I state as that is all I know and it never fails a review on this basis. If I come to claim, I have not lied. If I went with QDOS I would feel I would have to ensure it and even then if the client change their mind or was dishonest I would be exposed. So I question the wisdom of just jumping on the QDOS bandwagon.... It needs serious thought.

    Be very mindful of just agreeing to the blanket statements and opting for the basic contract reviews which are included. Seems like you could trip yourself up.

    If you was 100% sure of anything to do with IR35 then you wouldn’t need the tax loss insurance. Sadly we all operate in different shades of gray - well the vast majority of us.
    So even if your hiring manager has come back and said "yes" they agree (in writing) that if you were unable to provide services and you provided a substitute, this wouldn't be sufficient enough in court?

  5. #15

    Fingers like lightning

    BlueSharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dx4100 View Post
    I keep playing with the idea of switching but I would put up a word of caution against QDOS. They want you to subject yourself to statements such as :

    You are able to exercise a Right of Substitution

    A Right of Substitution allows you to provide suitable substitute personnel to carry out the services for your company if you are unable to do so personally. Your client may retain the right to reject a substitute on reasonable grounds relating to their suitability to provide the services required. Your company must also remain responsible for payment of any substitute. You are under no obligation to exercise your right of substitution, however the right must exist in practice – a written right of substitution in your contract is not sufficient unless it would be honoured by your client.
    Agreed, this is what makes me nervous about switching to them, the contract statement is not enough it must exist in practice. I think that statement is only in the tax insurance not the investigation insurance. From what I can see Larsen Howie do not have that statement but only offer £25k worth of cover.

  6. #16

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CompoundOverload View Post
    So even if your hiring manager has come back and said "yes" they agree (in writing) that if you were unable to provide services and you provided a substitute, this wouldn't be sufficient enough in court?
    If they come back in writing and say yes - but then say to HMRC later on they didn’t mean it - from everything I have picked up over the years then you going to be in a questionable position aren’t you ?

  7. #17

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    IPSE etc say its a good idea to get your working practices in writing. It’s more evidence of due diligence and helps argue your position.

    But in the end its just another bit of paper - much like your contract - which is subject to the client saying that isn’t the ACTUAL working practices. They could just say I signed it to shut them up and get them onboard.

    Remember investigations often involve HR people who never knew you and the people you have worked directly for may have also moved on etc.

    I have never bothered because in reality it adds no further protection to me other than honest contract and working practice reviews and insurance.
    Last edited by dx4100; 10th October 2019 at 10:32.

  8. #18

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dx4100 View Post
    If they come back in writing and say yes - but then say to HMRC later on they didn’t mean it - from everything I have picked up over the years then you going to be in a questionable position aren’t you ?
    That's always the case with working practises too, isn't it?

    You may have an idea in your head of these and have reviewed etc. You leave, you get an enquiry and your client totally contradicts them 4 years later, then what....

  9. #19

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CompoundOverload View Post
    That's always the case with working practises too, isn't it?

    You may have an idea in your head of these and have reviewed etc. You leave, you get an enquiry and your client totally contradicts them 4 years later, then what....
    Exactly this!

    So I use Abbey / Markel tax as they back you based on the working practices you stated. As long as you answer truthfully which I do.

    Now these could be disputed but its harder as I answer them honestly and if they change I update them. It’s not blanket statements I can’t back up from day 1.

  10. #20

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    40,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CompoundOverload View Post
    That's always the case with working practises too, isn't it?

    You may have an idea in your head of these and have reviewed etc. You leave, you get an enquiry and your client totally contradicts them 4 years later, then what....
    They won't open cases that old. From what I remember, every case so far has been opened while the contractor/presenter is in the gig.

    This is where the tickbox IR35 contractors fall down. They think they've filled the right forms in and then forget it's their ongoing responsibility to make sure everything fits, not to fall in to a permatractor arrangement once they are at their 'employers'. We've seen a few of them pop up on here in the last few weeks and there is going to be many more coming.
    Last edited by northernladuk; 10th October 2019 at 10:42.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •