IPSE vs QDOS

[TestMangler]

IPSE does still represent contractors - they've not (IMO) got managed to get the right balance between modifying the message to gain influence with the politicos and keeping their traditional membership on side, but they're still doing the right stuff. As I posted on their forums, I see their purpose as enabling us to continue operating in the way we want to, both by protecting us (the insurances) and attempting to influence politicians to create an operating environment that is friendly towards us.

If you do join up, don't forget to vote in the CC elections

And if you do decide to go with IPSE, MGM code IPSEMGM0004 will get us both a tenner at Amazon!

FaQQer's slacking!

Do they do a discount for Pirate bay ?

[Batcher]

I have both because of the QDOS TLC35 product. If an IR35 investigation lands, I'll call QDOS. For anything else, I'll call IPSE.

That was my plan. I had to get PCG involved when QDOS gave up too easily and were ready to feed me to the wolves unless I paid £7.5k - £10k for the appeal to the commissioners. (my failing memory used to think £7k but I found the letter from QDOS the other day).

[dty]

That was my plan. I had to get PCG involved when QDOS gave up too easily and were ready to feed me to the wolves unless I paid £7.5k - £10k for the appeal to the commissioners. (my failing memory used to think £7k but I found the letter from QDOS the other day).

My view on this is that if they accept the case at all (i.e. start fighting it), then I've effectively won given I've got TLC35. They'll either have to see it through to completion, or pay up. There is some clause somewhere about them not accepting a case, but I think they'll find that hard to invoke given they did the contract and working practice review too. And if they do refuse, then I'll head over to IPSE and end up having to pay the back taxes if I lose.

[jamesbrown]

Now, if IPSE offered a combined product that meant that I didn't have to buy the add-on from Abbey Tax and just paid more to IPSE, then I'd save myself the bother of buying from more than one supplier and I'd get it all from IPSE.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense, even if it might be administratively simpler for those that want both. You'd be asking all members to pay for a risk that is better managed by individuals (because it is better specified at an individual level, based on contract value, for example). Also, statistically speaking, there's very little to suggest that it's a risk worth managing because the probability of failure for a properly managed IR35 investigation is incredibly low. By way of contrast, the probability of failure for a poorly managed investigation is much higher, hence the position adopted by IPSE. What you're proposing wouldn't be good value for money at all IMHO. I also agree with Mal that IPSE isn't an insurance provider and shouldn't act as such. They provide representation and insure themselves against that risk.

[Contreras]

"IPSE vs. QDOS" isn't really a sensible dichotomy.

You're right, it's not, but...

QDOS do cover professional/legal representation not just restricted to IR35. Yes they have their TLC35 product (covering IR35 liabilities), but in fact if you look they have other product(s) without the liability cover and not dissimilar to the PCG+ of old, including jury service.

Not so long ago on this forum in the occasional QDOS vs. PCG debates, when QDOS appeared to have the edge on cost, the mantra used to be "well the difference is less than half a day's rate for most contractor's, so it's a no-brainer to support PCG". Now it seems IPSE+ is a no-brainer based on supposed cost benefit alone. </rant>

[malvolio]

My view on this is that if they accept the case at all (i.e. start fighting it), then I've effectively won given I've got TLC35. They'll either have to see it through to completion, or pay up. There is some clause somewhere about them not accepting a case, but I think they'll find that hard to invoke given they did the contract and working practice review too. And if they do refuse, then I'll head over to IPSE and end up having to pay the back taxes if I lose.

Don't quite follow the logic here. If you're not a member when the case starts, IPSE will not be obliged to provide their cover. If you are a member, why bother with QDOS at all and use the Abbey policy instead?

And if QDOS is significantly cheaper -I have no idea if they are, never having looked at either, but which is the only sensible reason for having both - then ask yourself what they are not doing that Abbey are and does it need to be done...

[jamesbrown]

You're right, it's not, but...

QDOS do cover professional/legal representation not just restricted to IR35. Yes they have their TLC35 product (covering IR35 liabilities), but in fact if you look they have other product(s) without the liability cover and not dissimilar to the PCG+ of old, including jury service.

Not so long ago on this forum in the occasional QDOS vs. PCG debates, when QDOS appeared to have the edge on cost, the mantra used to be "well the difference is less than half a day's rate for most contractor's, so it's a no-brainer to support PCG". Now it seems IPSE+ is a no-brainer based on supposed cost benefit alone. </rant>

I'm sure you can put together a pick-n-mix of products from other providers, possibly cheaper (although I highly doubt it, because there are many things IPSE offers that you might not be aware of; for example, through their affiliates, they are the only game in town if you deal with clients overseas and want reasonably priced PI insurance). However, beyond this, I think there's a question of motivation. Providers like QDOS will always base their decisions on commercial grounds (which, of course, includes managing the brand, even if it results in a pay-out). In contrast, IPSE are interested in pursuing points of law.

[Contreras]

I'm sure you can put together a pick-n-mix of products from other providers, possibly cheaper ...

...

However, beyond this, I think there's a question of motivation.

Yes, sorry my point was (to agree) that cost shouldn't be a deciding factor.

I am not sure IPSE reflects the interests of contractors these days, but that doesn't mean their in insurance is to be sniffed at.

IPSE provides good value for money in terms of costs vs. benefits, regardless of whether you agree with their broader efforts at representing contractors.

Supporting an organisation that doesn't align with your views because it's 'good value' is pretty short sighted and so obviously so that I wonder why the OP needs to ask the question at all.

[unixman]

Not quite clear about the timeframe of IR35 coverage here. For example, if I take out IR35 insurance now, does it cover my previous contract, if HMRC want to go back to that? Common sense would say "no", it would cover only the time the insurance was in force.

However, the IPSE FAQ (below) suggests that their insurance is good only so long as you are a paid-up member, which is far more restrictive. Say your current contract (at Smiths Ltd) was covered, then next week you leave to take up another. Your IPSE membership lapses in 2016, and you don't renew it. If HMRC decide to investigate your contract at Smiths retrospectively, IPSE seem to be saying you are on your own, even though their insurance was in force at the time of interest.

Hmmmm.

https://www.ipse.co.uk/tax-investigation-faq

[TheFaQQer]

Not quite clear about the timeframe of IR35 coverage here. For example, if I take out IR35 insurance now, does it cover my previous contract, if HMRC want to go back to that? Common sense would say "no", it would cover only the time the insurance was in force.

However, the IPSE FAQ (below) suggests that their insurance is good only so long as you are a paid-up member, which is far more restrictive. Say your current contract (at Smiths Ltd) was covered, then next week you leave to take up another. Your IPSE membership lapses in 2016, and you don't renew it. If HMRC decide to investigate your contract at Smiths retrospectively, IPSE seem to be saying you are on your own, even though their insurance was in force at the time of interest.

Hmmmm.

https://www.ipse.co.uk/tax-investigation-faq

With IPSE, you aren't paying to insure a contract - as a member, you are covered for any tax investigation. So if you aren't a member, then you won't be covered at all; but conversely if you are a member and HMRC ask what happened on a contract before you became a member, then you would be covered for that.

With Qdos, you used to be covered for the contracts that you include on the policy, but that's changed - again, though, you are covered while you have the insurance in place. If you don't renew your insurance, then you can't say "oh but I was insured last year for that contract".

Maybe AbbeyTax do a policy where you can insure a particular contract, but I don't think you're ever going to find anywhere that does a "pay once, insured forever" policy on a contract. I may be wrong though.