Is QDOS TLC35 better than legal cover?

[malvolio]

Given the practical application of the IR35 legislation is complex and enquires are so convoluted, I think the chances of arguing that insuring an IR35 liability is against public policy would be very slim indeed. Ultimately a contractor who presented the strongest possible case at the outset could be unwittingly scuppered by questionable client evidence. Every case is unique and none are certain, with factors outside of the insured’s control having significant potential bearing.

The policy has been around as long as the legislation itself. FCA regulation naturally requires rigorous scrutiny of all policies, both in their concept and their application, and we (and our insurers and auditors) are absolutely confident in the validity and extent of the cover.

Seb

OK, thanks.

[dingdangwang]

Thanks

Thanks everyone for your replies. As VillageContractor wrote, I've also got it for peace of mind. That annoys me, because I have doubts about its value. But like many insurances, I hope I'll never have to find out whether it's worth it!

[PerfectStorm]

We have certainly never refused to pay out on the liabilities portion of a policy having represented the contractor in a case.

Have you ever been in a position to do so? i.e. ever lost a case and had to pay out? There is a subtle difference between that and "not refused", as you might just have won each case.

[Qdos Contractor]

Have you ever been in a position to do so? i.e. ever lost a case and had to pay out? There is a subtle difference between that and "not refused", as you might just have won each case.

We have won every case insured under the TLC35 policy; I wasn't suggesting that we had been in a position to do so. We accept a claim at the point of the contractor reporting it to us, i.e. when the initial HMRC letter is received. We have never pulled out of an enquiry further down the line based on the facts presented to us on application.

[PerfectStorm]

We have won every case insured under the TLC35 policy; I wasn't suggesting that we had been in a position to do so. We accept a claim at the point of the contractor reporting it to us, i.e. when the initial HMRC letter is received. We have never pulled out of an enquiry further down the line based on the facts presented to us on application.

So the policy has indeed never paid out?

[Qdos Contractor]

So the policy has indeed never paid out?

To date the liabilities element of the policy hasn't had to pay out, no. As mentioned, that is for no other reason than a 100% record in insured cases.

[adubya]

I'd be tempted for the legal cover only then

[malvolio]

I'd be tempted for the legal cover only then

To be fair, IPSE gives slightly wider cover (i.e. anything vaguely tax related) plus the other stuff, apart from the excess tax cover (although you can add that via Abbey Tax if you feel you need it).

As we've said before, this is not a straight comparison of two similar products, they both have different approaches.

[TheFaQQer]

To be fair, IPSE gives slightly wider cover (i.e. anything vaguely tax related) plus the other stuff, apart from the excess tax cover (although you can add that via Abbey Tax if you feel you need it).

As we've said before, this is not a straight comparison of two similar products, they both have different approaches.

If you are looking on price alone, don't forget to consider whether you would have to pay any excess on an insurance claim as well, which can make some policies even more expensive than other protection.

[dingdangwang]

So the policy has indeed never paid out?

To date the liabilities element of the policy hasn't had to pay out, no. As mentioned, that is for no other reason than a 100% record in insured cases.

Thanks PerfectStorm for doggedly asking the real questions, and Qdos Contractor for your answers.