Pi/PL/El insurance renewal timing.

[Contreras]

Just as an aside, if you have a valid Right of Substitution you will need EL, since it covers anyone working for you (which they will be as implied by an RoS) in any capacity. so while it is a minor point in the scheme of things, having an RoS without EL cover could invalidate the RoS as a sham.

1. EL isn't strictly a legal requirement in every case - it depends on the nature of subbing - so no bearing on your RoS.

2. Even where required, say if you employed the sub, EL can be set up in minutes - no bearing on your RoS.

3. You don't currently have an employee (or EL would be a given) so not immediately in a position to sub - a greater hurdle than buying insurance - but that doesn't hurt your RoS.

4. Cost is irrelevant. You use this every time EL is mentioned as if it proves a myth because "it's not worth arguing about".

The providers make great play on how certain insurances (or lack of) could have bearing on IR35. To my knowledge EL doesn't get pushed in this context.

If someone wants to pay a little more to get EL for sake of keeping the agent happy, or simply cos "it only costs four pence", that's fine. But please let's drop this RoS nonsense.

[malvolio]

1. EL isn't strictly a legal requirement in every case - it depends on the nature of subbing - so no bearing on your RoS.

2. Even where required, say if you employed the sub, EL can be set up in minutes - no bearing on your RoS.

3. You don't currently have an employee (or EL would be a given) so not immediately in a position to sub - a greater hurdle than buying insurance - but that doesn't hurt your RoS.

4. Cost is irrelevant. You use this every time EL is mentioned as if it proves a myth because "it's not worth arguing about".

The providers make great play on how certain insurances (or lack of) could have bearing on IR35. To my knowledge EL doesn't get pushed in this context.

If someone wants to pay a little more to get EL for sake of keeping the agent happy, or simply cos "it only costs four pence", that's fine. But please let's drop this RoS nonsense.

I did say it was a trivial consideration in all senses, including cost. However, the nature of a substitution in our world is very specific in that you remain responsible for the work and are sending in someone on your behalf to do the work for YourCo under your original contract: any other variation is merely a re-assignment of work and so outside the contract. In that particular circumstance EL would be mandatory.

So by all means point out the minimal requirement for EL 99% of the time but what I am saying is, for our purposes, entirely correct. I'm not disputing that it doesn't really matter in the real world for some of the other reasons you quoted. Other opinions are available.

[Lance]

2. Even where required, say if you employed the sub, EL can be set up in minutes - no bearing on your RoS.

I'd be more concerned of PI insurance if RoS is used. The only reason we get PI so cheap is because we're all one man bands. Have a look at what PI costs if you employ people.

But I agree that lack of insurance is irrelevant as a factor in whether RoS is a sham or not.

[SandyD]

As an update the client admin came back today confirming she got all what she needs and she is forwarding it to the contract payment department, she seemed happy and not bothered that EL is missing, but I expect she must've faced this with many other contractors at this bank