Capita insurances: employers/liability/PI

[lilou]

Hi there

I am currently going through my first security check/onboarding to be a contractor in the public service via the Capita framework.
my agency is asking me for 3 insurance certificates up to £1m: employers/public liability/PI.

I have already explained i have no employees therefore Employers Insurance was irrelevant however they are insisting it is required, WTF? anybody else?
as for public liability, i wondered what your experience was, being an IT contractor on the government premises, if you check the Hiscox 'test' (plus commonsense), the chances of you needing it are close to nil (no client at your premises, no physical work etc...)

As for PI, happy to take it, (well, sort of), so won't ask about that

[tractor]

Hi there

I am currently going through my first security check/onboarding to be a contractor in the public service via the Capita framework.
my agency is asking me for 3 insurance certificates up to £1m: employers/public liability/PI.

I have already explained i have no employees therefore Employers Insurance was irrelevant however they are insisting it is required, WTF? anybody else?
as for public liability, i wondered what your experience was, being an IT contractor on the government premises, if you check the Hiscox 'test' (plus commonsense), the chances of you needing it are close to nil (no client at your premises, no physical work etc...)

As for PI, happy to take it, (well, sort of), so won't ask about that

With some of the providers you get PL/EL thrown in as well when you buy PI so depending on cost, it becomes a non issue.

[malvolio]

If you have a RoS, you can potentially use subbies or even your own employees. If so, you must have ELI, that's the law (albeit one not that many know about). It costs about fourpence, so not worth worrying about, just get it as part of the package.

[Contreras]

If you have a RoS, you can potentially use subbies or even your own employees. If so, you must have ELI, that's the law (albeit one not that many know about). It costs about fourpence, so not worth worrying about, just get it as part of the package.

Yada yada. There is no law to require ELI only if you potentially may use subbies. Not having ELI does not invalidate your RoS. It only takes four seconds to put in place, so not worth worrying about until you need it.

[malvolio]

Yada yada. There is no law to require ELI only if you potentially may use subbies. Not having ELI does not invalidate your RoS. It only takes four seconds to put in place, so not worth worrying about until you need it.

Yada yourself. If you are able to use subbies, you need the insurance. Not having it in place means you obviously don't intend using subbies so don't need a RoS which is therefore clearly a tax avoidance sham and so forms no part of your IR35 defence </HMRC>

Try thinking from the other side's perspective occasionally. It's quite enlightening.

[tractor]

Like all these things that are untested at court, there is no hard and fast answer, only internet experts.

[northernladuk]

You had the questions about the (extinct) BETs? Suitably aware of IR35 to know the potential issues and have taken steps to cover yourself Ie. Contract professionaly checked and joined IPSE and or IR35 insurance?

Capita gig's in the public sector are not for the faint hearted.

[Contreras]

Yada yourself. If you are able to use subbies, you need the insurance. Not having it in place means you obviously don't intend using subbies so don't need a RoS which is therefore clearly a tax avoidance sham and so forms no part of your IR35 defence </HMRC>

Try thinking from the other side's perspective occasionally. It's quite enlightening.

Thinking from the other side's perspective, the RoS is clearly not a sham because:

• Not intending to sub is not the same as not having the Right to Sub
• Not all forms of subbing have ELI as a legal requirement
• It only take four seconds to put ELI in place if/when you need it

I accept your point about cost and that is for the consumer to decide. I object to repeated (but so far unsuccessful) attempts to create a contractor myth.

Think about it - not even the IR35 insurers (QDOS, et al.) use your line in marketing their ELI products. They would quite easily do so if it had any basis in fact - and they are the experts.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...abilities.html
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ce-advice.html
http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...-ipse-etc.html

[malvolio]

• Not intending to sub is not the same as not having the Right to Sub

But the Right implies that you may need to exercise it. If you aren't, why have the Right?

• Not all forms of subbing have ELI as a legal requirement

Yes they do, if you're using a sub-contractor to substitute for you, as per the contract. You may not if you have sub-contracted some work to them, but that is not what RoS is about

• It only take four seconds to put ELI in place if/when you need it

So do it anyway and avoid the potential problems

[tractor]

But the Right implies that you may need to exercise it. If you aren't, why have the Right?
Yes they do, if you're using a sub-contractor to substitute for you, as per the contract. You may not if you have sub-contracted some work to them, but that is not what RoS is about
So do it anyway and avoid the potential problems

1. Unforeseen circumstances

2. Depends upon the arrangement, if the sub is using their own corporate structure, they will have their own (you would have likely insisted upon it)

3. Given in many circumstances it has no extra cost, can't argue with the JFDI approach.