Work in Banking? Don't worry about the blanket ban you were probably inside all along

[yMyjgT]

Are there insurance products for individuals who have closed their companies to insure against costs from losing these types of tribunals?

[eek]

Are there insurance products for individuals who have closed their companies to insure against costs from losing these types of tribunals?

Not really but once your company is closed it would be hard for HMRC to come knocking

[jamesbrown]

Are there insurance products for individuals who have closed their companies to insure against costs from losing these types of tribunals?

Probably not. Although it turns out that, for an existing QDOS TLC35 policy, they look through a closure and continue to insure the closed company, other factors being equal (according to an account from another poster in another thread, relayed from QDOS). But no, not once you've done the deed. Still, unless you've been fraudulent or negligent (failed to take reasonable care), then it's quite a hurdle to re-open a company and reassign a liability from the PSC to the office holder or employee (who acted in good faith and took reasonable care).

[CompoundOverload]

Probably not. Although it turns out that, for an existing QDOS TLC35 policy, they look through a closure and continue to insure the closed company, other factors being equal (according to an account from another poster in another thread, relayed from QDOS). But no, not once you've done the deed. Still, unless you've been fraudulent or negligent (failed to take reasonable care), then it's quite a hurdle to re-open a company and reassign a liability from the PSC to the office holder or employee (who acted in good faith and took reasonable care).

Presumably reasonable care would be covered off by a contract review?

Fraudulent or negligent behavior would, I assume, be things like not paying taxes on time?

[Pring]

Presumably reasonable care would be covered off by a contract review?

That's how I've always understood it. Pair it with a signed Confirmation of Arrangements letter and it'd be difficult to argue that both you and the client weren't in agreement about your status.

[northernladuk]

That's how I've always understood it. Pair it with a signed Confirmation of Arrangements letter and it'd be difficult to argue that both you and the client weren't in agreement about your status.

How many people have a CoA and can you be sure the right person has signed it so it will stand up in court. I'd imagine 90+% of the few CoAs out there won't stand up.

[eek]

How many people have a CoA and can you be sure the right person has signed it so it will stand up in court. I'd imagine 90+% of the few CoAs out there won't stand up.

Would the person actually stand up in court and that it continued to be valid across the multiple contracts beyond the one it's related to.

My concern is that you are giving weight to something that could be easily knocked away.

[jamesbrown]

Presumably reasonable care would be covered off by a contract review?

Fraudulent or negligent behavior would, I assume, be things like not paying taxes on time?

I tend to agree. That plus evidence of ongoing compliance in WPs strikes me as reasonable care.

[LetterBox]

My concern is that you are giving weight to something that could be easily knocked away.

My concern is that weight is given to anything, in these dark times it appears anything can be easily knocked away. Assume everything has equal weight and get as much evidence as possible.

[northernladuk]

My concern is that weight is given to anything, in these dark times it appears anything can be easily knocked away. Assume everything has equal weight and get as much evidence as possible.

If you are concered about it then surely that is totally the wrong approach. Assume nothing, understand and investigate. Assume all that sounds more like your standard tickbox permietractor approach.

But yes, always get evidence, but again, understand what the evidence gives you and why you need to keep it.