Capita insurances: employers/liability/PI Capita insurances: employers/liability/PI
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2

    Default Capita insurances: employers/liability/PI

    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

  2. #2

    Super poster

    tractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Berks
    Posts
    3,518

    Default ....

    Quote Originally Posted by lilou View Post
    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.

  3. #3

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    11,442

    Default

    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.
    Blog? What blog...?

  4. #4

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malvolio View Post
    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.

  5. #5

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    11,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Contreras View Post
    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.
    Blog? What blog...?

  6. #6

    Super poster

    tractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Berks
    Posts
    3,518

    Default ....

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

  7. #7

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    40,715

    Default

    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.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  8. #8

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malvolio View Post
    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

  9. #9

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    11,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Contreras View Post
    • 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
    Blog? What blog...?

  10. #10

    Super poster

    tractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Berks
    Posts
    3,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malvolio View Post
    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.

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
  •