Client suddenly deems you inside before April

[jamesbrown]

I think Seb has been quite clear, TBH. Some people aren’t listening. At the time a claim is made, the insurer’s defence team would need to decide whether there is a realistic prospect of success. If there isn’t, for whatever reason, then tough luck. In the vast majority of cases, there would be. In the situation where the client is arguing against the contractor, there probably wouldn’t be, unless the contractor had excellent evidence to the contrary.

If the client says the contractor is inside and there has been no change in WP over the duration of the engagement, then the contractor was probably always inside. If there is no realistic prospect of success, it doesn’t matter when the determination was made by the client that undermines the contractor.

Personally, I’ve always questioned tax liability insurance. Professional expenses insurance is always worthwhile. With tax liability cover, you are focused on that very small % of borderline cases where it could go either way. If a case proceeds, you will almost certainly win, statistically speaking. If it doesn’t, that is because you had no realistic prospect of success.

[jk3838]

OK, sorry for any confusion I caused as OP was talking client assessment for later date contract/role, and I was talking client assessment of current contracts/roles

For the purposes of clarity, I am asking about my situation, whereby the client is talking about doing assessments on current roles on contractors here in the coming few months in readiness for April

I simply wanted to know from QDOS what effect an incorrect inside client determination on my current contract would have on my TLC35 insurance validity

In short, I just want to know from QDOS if the insurance becomes invalid if a client suddenly does an incorrect 'inside' assessment at any time regardless of contradictory evidence

I.E. despite my QDOS contract assessment as 'outside' and all the other evidence showing me currently as 'outside', if the client were to suddenly determine my current role and contract incorrectly 'inside' with no valid reasons, (as we know they can do), would that mean that QDOS would then see it as a 'too hard to win' case, and not represent me, even for the period from before the wrong client determination, even if I left as soon as I got the incorrect 'inside' client assessment determination for my current contract/role, or would they stand by their own 'outside' assessment of my contract, my due diligence and 'outside' evidence

If an incorrect client determination, done without prior knowledge can wreck your insurance, we all do have a problem

Again sorry for any confusion (and for repetition)

[jk3838]

Personally, I’ve always questioned tax liability insurance. Professional expenses insurance is always worthwhile. With tax liability cover, you are focused on that very small % of borderline cases where it could go either way. If a case proceeds, you will almost certainly win, statistically speaking. If it doesn’t, that is because you had no realistic prospect of success.

Definitely food for thought

[northernladuk]

Definitely food for thought

Not really. It's £250 or so and Seb has stated that people have had to claim on it and all won.

I have my own thoughts on it and why it isn't a scale rate against risk etc like most other insurances but either way I wouldn't be without it.

[northernladuk]

OK, sorry for any confusion I caused as OP was talking client assessment for later date contract/role, and I was talking client assessment of current contracts/roles

For the purposes of clarity, I am asking about my situation, whereby the client is talking about doing assessments on current roles on contractors here in the coming few months in readiness for April

I simply wanted to know from QDOS what effect an incorrect inside client determination on my current contract would have on my TLC35 insurance validity

In short, I just want to know from QDOS if the insurance becomes invalid if a client suddenly does an incorrect 'inside' assessment at any time regardless of contradictory evidence

I.E. despite my QDOS contract assessment as 'outside' and all the other evidence showing me currently as 'outside', if the client were to suddenly determine my current role and contract incorrectly 'inside' with no valid reasons, (as we know they can do), would that mean that QDOS would then see it as a 'too hard to win' case, and not represent me, even for the period from before the wrong client determination, even if I left as soon as I got the incorrect 'inside' client assessment determination for my current contract/role, or would they stand by their own 'outside' assessment of my contract, my due diligence and 'outside' evidence

If an incorrect client determination, done without prior knowledge can wreck your insurance, we all do have a problem

Again sorry for any confusion (and for repetition)

If you ask the same thing multiple times I'm sure we'll get through the confusion...

Answer will be the same as you've been told multiple times as well.

Why don't you pick up the phone and speak to QDOS about your exact situation seems you are so worried?

[jamesbrown]

Not really. It's £250 or so and Seb has stated that people have had to claim on it and all won.

I have my own thoughts on it and why it isn't a scale rate against risk etc like most other insurances but either way I wouldn't be without it.

To be clear, I am commenting on the tax liability component. I am not commenting on a specific product like TLC35, which covers far more than IR35 (as I understand it) and also covers professional fees. What I am saying is that the tax liability component is generally a waste of money IMHO, because it is covering a very narrow situation. It isn't the comfort blanket that people might think. If you don't have an arguable case (e.g., because your client is severely undermining you), you're going to be in trouble, one way or another. If you do have an arguable case, you will probably win it, statistically speaking. It is more about understanding what you're paying for and how it stacks up against other, similar, products available elsewhere. The cover is cheap for a reason. If the insurance company accepted tail risk, it would be a lot more expensive.

[northernladuk]

To be clear, I am commenting on the tax liability component. I am not commenting on a specific product like TLC35, which covers far more than IR35 (as I understand it) and also covers professional fees. What I am saying is that the tax liability component is generally a waste of money IMHO, because it is covering a very narrow situation. It isn't the comfort blanket that people might think. If you don't have an arguable case, you're going to be in trouble, one way or another. It is more about understanding what you're paying for and how it stacks up against other, similar, products available elsewhere. The cover is cheap for a reason. If the insurance company accepted tail risk, it would be a lot more expensive.

Got you. I pay my £250 and know Seb will fix everything so never put that much thought in to it

[jamesbrown]

incorrect 'inside' assessment

If their assessment is inside and you can clearly show that it is wrong, then surely the insurer would agree with you that there is a realistic prospect of success? If so, no problem.

OTOH, you may not be able to show that or the insurer's legal team may disagree with you about their being a realistic prospect of success.

As I keep saying, you won't have your answer until it actually happens and your case is assessed on merit.

[jk3838]

Not really. It's £250 or so and Seb has stated that people have had to claim on it and all won.

I have my own thoughts on it and why it isn't a scale rate against risk etc like most other insurances but either way I wouldn't be without it.

Mine was a fair bit more than that but I wanted to cover the full liability should the worse happen

I bought it for peace of mind, but I haven't got that since I came to the realization that an incorrect 'inside' assessment by some HR halfwit, which they can do at anytime, will be part of the 'how likely are we to win?' decision by QDOS and whether to step up on my behalf or not

Once the client says you're 'inside' to cover themselves, even if they're wrong, it has an affect on your individual case success rating for that current contract

This I don't like, hence my 'food for thought' comment, unless I'm understanding the above incorrectly

[northernladuk]

I bought it for peace of mind, but I haven't got that since I came to the realization that an incorrect 'inside' assessment by some HR halfwit, which they can do at anytime, will be part of the 'how likely are we to win?' decision by QDOS and whether to step up on my behalf or not

Once the client says you're 'inside' to cover themselves, even if they're wrong, it has an affect on your individual case success rating for that current contract

This I don't like, hence my 'food for thought' comment, unless I'm understanding the above incorrectly

I'm sure I didn't read that in to any of it. You need to speak to QDOS and get it from the horse's mouth.