Would you be an IPSE member if it weren't for the insurances offered?

[v8gaz]

As I had the IR35 insurance with Qdos I contacted them initially when I got a letter from HMRC for a PAYE review (which I knew was a leader to an IR35 investigation).

After 4 years and 3 different Qdos people handling my case HMRC deemed me guilty. Qdos decided that the insurance didn't cover the £7k needed to take it to the commissioner for appeal and I would have to pay for that myself if I wanted to take the risk.

At the end of my tether I called PCG (as it was at the time) and they sorted it within a couple of months without having to go to the commissioners. HMRC said (paraphrasing) I was guilty but they would let me off on this occasion.

YMMV

And there's the difference. IPSE are not here to make a profit, and is of course a not-for-profit organisation. IPSE are there to protect contractors and independent professionals from HMRC and other attacks. You won't find anyone else prepared to risk a million quid taking S660 to the House of Lords.

[wattaj]

Poll to follow.

Hmm, not much PCG love around here...
That's a shame as they genuinely believe that they trying to do *good* (pick your definition thereof), and they are the only non-profit in the game... Everyone else is looking to pick one's pocket in order to line theirs with a few shekels.

Don't get me wrong; I'm no PCG apologist... Just ask that insufferable oaf <insert PCG sock-puppet here> what my reputation's like in the other place... But I don't think that they deserve the level of derision that's been on display here this week.

ICBW; it's not as if it hasn't happened before.

[Zero Liability]

Qdos Consulting - Taxation and VAT - Employment Law - HR - Insurance - Contractor Insurance - IR35 - PI Insurance

There's also Accountax/AbbeyTax, but they're on a contract basis rather than annual policies.

[DiscoStu]

Hmm, not much PCG love around here...
That's a shame as they genuinely believe that they trying to do *good* (pick your definition thereof), and they are the only non-profit in the game... Everyone else is looking to pick one's pocket in order to line theirs with a few shekels.

Don't get me wrong; I'm no PCG apologist... Just ask that insufferable oaf <insert PCG sock-puppet here> what my reputation's like in the other place... But I don't think that they deserve the level of derision that's been on display here this week.

ICBW; it's not as if it hasn't happened before.

I posted the poll out of genuine curiosity. From a personal point of view I think the insurances provided are a really good value product, but I've no desire to see my hard-earned spent on re-brands, office space, events and an online MBA course I'll never use.

[TheFaQQer]

That is a fair point. They were going to stick that one on all married contractors.

No they weren't. They were going to stick it on all married contractors who chose to split income. There's a big difference.

[Old Greg]

No they weren't. They were going to stick it on all married contractors who chose to split income. There's a big difference.

Not on those married contractors who are both fee earners.

[TheFaQQer]

Hmm, not much PCG love around here...
That's a shame as they genuinely believe that they trying to do *good* (pick your definition thereof), and they are the only non-profit in the game... Everyone else is looking to pick one's pocket in order to line theirs with a few shekels.

Don't get me wrong; I'm no PCG apologist... Just ask that insufferable oaf <insert PCG sock-puppet here> what my reputation's like in the other place... But I don't think that they deserve the level of derision that's been on display here this week.

ICBW; it's not as if it hasn't happened before.

I'll preface this by saying in advance - this is NOT a rant or a tantrum, no matter how it may read to some

The challenge for IPSE (as I see it) is that they have 20000 "subscribers" (people who are there for some reason but aren't interested in taking part) and 500 members.

The question is why are those 20000 not involved more - what do they want out of the organisation? Why are they members at all?

Why is the turnout for the elections so poor - is it because people really don't care about how it is run, or is it something more basic like not understanding exactly what they are voting for? Is it because people see it as the same old faces each time? As has been shown in the IPSE fora, I have no real understanding of how the organisation is governed and what the CC do (although I vote in the elections each time) - is that a shortfall on my part, or on the part of the IPSE executive / non-executive bodies, or a bit of both?

Ultimately, I think that people aren't clear on exactly what IPSE "do" - we've heard words of encouragement on things like SC clearance, opt out (disaster), ICT abuse, lobbying etc. - and yet the only real tangible, obvious success that the PCG had was with the Arctic case. There MUST be more that they have done, but if isn't obvious to people then there will always be some kind of disconnect between the subscribers and the few genuine members.

I'm holding judgement a bit on the direction that IPSE is going to take. Personally, I read the advert slogan of "Are you an independent professional or contractor?" a little off putting. Maybe I misread it and put an "a" before contractor, but my immediate thought was that the organisation was now implying that if you are a contractor (or see yourself as one) then you can't be an independent professional.

As Stu says - I see the insurances as good value for money, though, which is the primary reason for my membership. I don't like to see money being wasted, and I'm not convinced that IPSE have always spent wisely.

[malvolio]

This makes interesting reading. Note the one about Family Business Tax; stopping stuff is sometimes as important as doing stuff.

[JustinTime]

This makes interesting reading. Note the one about Family Business Tax; stopping stuff is sometimes as important as doing stuff.

I've already pointed out how disgraceful it is that PCG has been erased from IPSE's history. Lazy search/replace is no excuse. That one act is utterly shameful, and someone should get a kicking for it.

However, I doubt that will happen as the PCG circle-jerk into irrelevance continues apace.

[Batcher]

I'll preface this by saying in advance - this is NOT a rant or a tantrum, no matter how it may read to some

The challenge for IPSE (as I see it) is that they have 20000 "subscribers" (people who are there for some reason but aren't interested in taking part) and 500 members.

The question is why are those 20000 not involved more - what do they want out of the organisation? Why are they members at all?

Why is the turnout for the elections so poor - is it because people really don't care about how it is run, or is it something more basic like not understanding exactly what they are voting for? Is it because people see it as the same old faces each time? As has been shown in the IPSE fora, I have no real understanding of how the organisation is governed and what the CC do (although I vote in the elections each time) - is that a shortfall on my part, or on the part of the IPSE executive / non-executive bodies, or a bit of both?

Ultimately, I think that people aren't clear on exactly what IPSE "do" - we've heard words of encouragement on things like SC clearance, opt out (disaster), ICT abuse, lobbying etc. - and yet the only real tangible, obvious success that the PCG had was with the Arctic case. There MUST be more that they have done, but if isn't obvious to people then there will always be some kind of disconnect between the subscribers and the few genuine members.

I'm holding judgement a bit on the direction that IPSE is going to take. Personally, I read the advert slogan of "Are you an independent professional or contractor?" a little off putting. Maybe I misread it and put an "a" before contractor, but my immediate thought was that the organisation was now implying that if you are a contractor (or see yourself as one) then you can't be an independent professional.

As Stu says - I see the insurances as good value for money, though, which is the primary reason for my membership. I don't like to see money being wasted, and I'm not convinced that IPSE have always spent wisely.

Sometimes people are just quite happy to join an organisation they feel is fighting for them without seeing the need to get too involved in the politics of running the organisation.

Just like a football supporter's club, some people join to be with like-minded people but don't care about the running of the club as long as the bus turns up on time to take them to the game.