QDOS TLC Insurance

[northernladuk]

QDOS has now given in writing that they will still cover me on TLC35 and represent me even if I do not have Business Insurance. I never understood why they even put that clause for TLC35 when that is tax liability cover from HMRC rather than any claims from client.

This kinda pisses me off. So.... You were the low hanging fruit at most risk.. you were outside and got moved inside by your client. The highest risk catagory exactly the people we thought HMRC would be rubbing their hands with glee at. It's possible the client got it wrong but lets say they haven't. They've held their hands up and said they want to control you, they wouldn't take RoS and MoO is present so they've put you inside where you should have been all along.
QDOS say you pay your £250 and they will cover you for this? That's appalling. If you got caught the case would cost QDOS tens of thousands from other people's payments where you've paid just £250 and are in the highest risk catagory. Why have I been paying for 10+ years and not needed them because I've done things properly yet they'll use all that money I've paid in to cover someone who should be inside and should be caught?

That's just not right.... You were incorrectly outside, customer has admitted that, QDOS should want nothing to do with this for obvious reasons. What other insurance in the world is there where you can commit the offense and then get insurance for it afterwards? at the same rate as everyone else that's done everything right?

QDOS won't cover policies that were checked and failed so why will they cover yours without even seeing the contract? Just madness.

All that said, I also understand the reason QDOS is OK with it is because they know the chance of you getting investigated is slim to nil. It's free money so they won't turn away a free £250 because they know the risk of them having to spend tens of k defending you won't happen. Doing the right thing by loyal paying customers doesn't matter if the risk isn't there.

The fact they've got the clause about the business insurance is probably kind of what I'm saying. You've not given QDOS a penny and now you expect full legal coverage for just 250 quid.

[Paralytic]

This kinda pisses me off. So.... You were the low hanging fruit at most risk.. you were outside and got moved inside by your client.

Where did the OP say his role was moved inside?

The highest risk catagory exactly the people we thought HMRC would be rubbing their hands with glee at.

Higher than those who were determined inside, then that determination was "revoked" when the IR35 delay took place in April 2020? I'm sure who you include in "we" here, but I think they need to have a bit of a rethink.

<snip "Its not fair" rant based on wrong assumptions>

I also understand the reason QDOS is OK with it is because they know the chance of you getting investigated is slim to nil. It's free money so they won't turn away a free £250 because they know the risk of them having to spend tens of k defending you won't happen.

Er, that's what insurance companies do - they price polices based on risk across their portfolio knowing they will have to pay out on the few that make a claim, but not on the vast majority that don't, and they make a profit.

Are you now suggesting they should only take on customers who they think will never claim? Can you work out what the end-game would be for them if they did that so obviously?

Doing the right thing by loyal paying customers doesn't matter if the risk isn't there.

This made me laugh. Doing the right thing by loyal paying customers. Its just like when politicians and media use "What about the hard working families". It means nothing.

[northernladuk]

Where did the OP say his role was moved inside?

He hasn't give enough information so I've gone for the assumption. The only other option is they've not done a determination and gone for a blanket ban which is also gonna attract attention so either way by staying he goes in to the higher risk catagory

Higher than those who were determined inside, then that determination was "revoked" when the IR35 delay took place in April 2020? I'm sure who you include in "we" here, but I think they need to have a bit of a rethink.

Doesn't really matter. If he has been deemed inside by his client and he's been operating outside then he's exactly what HMRC want. Revoked or whatever doesn't matter. The client has made it clear what the role should have been.

Er, that's what insurance companies do - they price polices based on risk across their portfolio knowing they will have to pay out on the few that make a claim, but not on the vast majority that don't, and they make a profit.

They do... but QDOS don't which is my whole point. I paid the same amount for 10 years (forget general price rises and the like) and work hard to keep my IR35 status safe so somebody shouldn't come in, pay the same amount once to be covered for high risk situations. That's my point.

Are you now suggesting they should only take on customers who they think will never claim? Can you work out what the end-game would be for them if they did that so obviously?

That's a bit of a generalisation. They shouldn't take on customers that are at very high risk of an investigation just for the sake of £250. You said yourself they should price on risk. I'm sure I saw a post somewhere saying QDOS wouldn't insure the GSK people becuase they've been deemed inside and got a letter from HMRC so why should someone in the same boat without a letter from HMRC get insurance for the same price?

This made me laugh. Doing the right thing by loyal paying customers. Its just like when politicians and media use "What about the hard working families". It means nothing.

Sadly this is true, wrong but true. Maybe a bit of wishful thinking.