Reply to: Caunce O'Hara Legal Expenses Insurance

[TheFaQQer]

The point is that almost all members* would be better off saving the money and buying the professional advice when the worst happened.

* I'm beginning to think I have completely overestimated the sense of most members so I may be completely wrong.

If the cost of an investigation came in at £10k, then you would have needed to be an IPSE+ member for more than 40 years to be worse off.

If you don't think you'll be investigated, or be sick, or be called up for jury duty, or have any kind of tax query, or have a client go bust, or have an agency go bust, then the insurance offering is a waste of money and you'd be better off not being a member.

I'm not there for the IR35 cover, and never have been, though.

[TheFaQQer]

(which seems to be the typical level of you and other IPSE experts)

Where are these IPSE experts that post on CUK?

[TheFaQQer]

malvolia/TheFAQQer - have you checked?

No

[Dylan]

Only 3rd party is compulsory hence me being specific about it. Agree that the markets are different though.

[SueEllen]

Exactly right BUT car insurance is competitive and the difference is much smaller.

Car insurance is a bad comparison because it's compulsory unless you have a "few" thousand pounds to lodge at the Bank of England.

Our insurance is optional which means we have a specialist market, so much less competition. At least we have at least 5 providers who will give us relevant insurance, some professions are stuck with a couple.

I hope never to need my contents insurance, which is again optional, but I have it just in case a freak or malicious event occurs. I haven't yet in all the years I've had it made a claim.

[malvolio]

Fair enough. As long as you don't join based on very dodgy advice about the insurance and then don't understand the terms and conditions.

Such as?

[FiddlersGreen]

It's not just about insurance for me. It's about all the other benefits I get too from having one organisation that represents me and what I do.

Fair enough. As long as you don't join based on very dodgy advice about the insurance and then don't understand the terms and conditions.

[FiddlersGreen]

Why do you insure your car above and beyond the legal minimum requirement of 3rd party? Car insurance companies make a profit and payout much less than the money they bring in - it would therefore be better to save the money and payout to replace your own car in the event of a crash. Unless of course you see some value in paying the extra few hundred quid a year and not having to worry about finding x amount in the event that you crash.

Exactly right BUT car insurance is competitive and the difference is much smaller.

[TheCoconutDog]

The point is that almost all members* would be better off saving the money and buying the professional advice when the worst happened.

* I'm beginning to think I have completely overestimated the sense of most members so I may be completely wrong.

It's not just about insurance for me. It's about all the other benefits I get too from having one organisation that represents me and what I do.

[Dylan]

Why do you insure your car above and beyond the legal minimum requirement of 3rd party? Car insurance companies make a profit and payout much less than the money they bring in - it would therefore be better to save the money and payout to replace your own car in the event of a crash. Unless of course you see some value in paying the extra few hundred quid a year and not having to worry about finding x amount in the event that you crash.

[mudskipper]

If you have worked out that the insurance is not that good then why promote it?

I think it is good value for me - I'm happy to hand over my membership fee and know that I've got them on my side if the tulip hits the fan, or even for minor hiccups like jury service cover etc.

[mudskipper]

The point is that almost all members* would be better off saving the money and buying the professional advice when the worst happened.

* I'm beginning to think I have completely overestimated the sense of most members so I may be completely wrong.

It's an option. Professional advice for an IR35 investigation is likely to cost you a few K, so well within the means of most contractors. I guess you could argue that for the low risk of an IR35 investigation that is the best option in terms of risk vs expenditure. Risks of other investigations are higher (e.g. VAT inspection) but the associated costs are lower.

But, as you already know, IPSE membership does give you a lot more than just tax investigation cover - guess it depends what you want from it, and whether you want to support IPSE's lobbying activities.

[FiddlersGreen]

Fair enough - sounds like you're pretty well informed, so I'm sure you can make your own decision.

If you have worked out that the insurance is not that good then why promote it?

[FiddlersGreen]

Well if you're not going to listen, why ask? If you're confident you will never get a tax investigation of any kind, then obviously you don't need the insurance. Let's hope your confidence is not misplaced. Lots of people however do not have that confidence.

IPSE covers a lot more than tax investigations, come to that, but clearly that's not relevant either.

The point is that almost all members* would be better off saving the money and buying the professional advice when the worst happened.

* I'm beginning to think I have completely overestimated the sense of most members so I may be completely wrong.

[mudskipper]

If the amount that was paid out in their last financial year for the "insurance" side as a percentage of total membership subscriptions was more than 25% then I'll buy you a bottle of wine/champagne up to £40 in value.

Fair enough - sounds like you're pretty well informed, so I'm sure you can make your own decision.