QDOS IR35 insurance

[Eirikur]

When you have an IR35 insurance with QDOS why should one bother to have new contracts reviewed?

[TheFaQQer]

I thought you needed to specify the contracts which are covered, and have them reviewed when you add them to the policy?

[jamesbrown]

Yes, as an insurance product, I'm pretty sure they do their due diligence on individual contracts. In contrast, PCG defend all cases (and insure themselves against risk), but in the exceedingly unlikely event that a case is lost, you wouldn't have the tax loss covered. Anyway, all of these insurers review contracts as the basis for admission in my understanding.

[northernladuk]

Question is do you want to protect yourself from a lengthy and very stressful investigating or not. Avoidance of this is much better than hoping it will be covered when it's all gone wrong.

[northernladuk]

And remember there is never a 100% chance that any insurance will pay out. Is it worth the risk?

[Eirikur]

I thought you needed to specify the contracts which are covered, and have them reviewed when you add them to the policy?

You had to specify the contracts, but not have them reviewed. Now you don't even need to specify them anymore.
Saw in another thread they never had to pay out so far, that must mean they feel quite confident, they can deal with having to fork out for contracts they have never seen before.

[jamesbrown]

You had to specify the contracts, but not have them reviewed. Now you don't even need to specify them anymore.
Saw in another thread they never had to pay out so far, that must mean they feel quite confident, they can deal with having to fork out for contracts they have never seen before.

What's the policy wording on due diligence? You probably need to demonstrate a reasonable basis for believing that a particular contract is outside. On the other hand, this could just be a business decision for QDOS, i.e. that their risk-weighted returns would be better by not bothering with reviews anymore (presumably because some contractors would prefer to bury their heads). Personally, I'd always solicit a professional review, regardless of any insurance coverage. Afterall, who wants a prolonged enquiry on the basis of a poorly worded contract that doesn't reflect an outside position on the basis of working practices?

[northernladuk]

You had to specify the contracts, but not have them reviewed. Now you don't even need to specify them anymore.
Saw in another thread they never had to pay out so far, that must mean they feel quite confident, they can deal with having to fork out for contracts they have never seen before.

But they could have never paid out because people are doing enough diligence to avoid or bat off an investigation well before the insurance is required.

If you don't do your work correctly then the number of times they have to pay out may start to increase.

Think of car insurance. You have fully comp so why be a careful driver? You'll get your money back without too much loss so why bother? You know the answer to that.

[TheFaQQer]

You had to specify the contracts, but not have them reviewed.

My policy from last year (expires this September) says at the top of it

You are covered for representation costs in respect of any enquiry. However, cover for tax, NI, interest and penalties is limited to the contracts below. If you would like to add a new contract or extension to this list, please contact us at [email protected] or 0116 2690 999. Any new contracts will be reviewed free of charge.

I took that to mean that they needed to be reviewed as well, but I guess it's changed this year.

[Maslins]

Think of car insurance. You have fully comp so why be a careful driver? You'll get your money back without too much loss so why bother? You know the answer to that.

Indeed, that was broadly my thought. I have house insurance, so why do I bother locking the door?