Inside IR35?? Does that affect ‘run off’ under PI insurance?

[WordIsBond]

I do not at all get the suspicion on this one. It seems to me a very good point.

Client: 'We've made a determination that you are inside.'

Contractor: 'You realise the law is very clear that if I am not under Supervision / Direction / Control, that you can't make that determination, that would be clearly outside.'

Client: 'You are under SDC.'

Contractor: 'Can you please put that in writing for me? My PI insurance provider will be interested if you try to make a claim against us, since you are affirming that you are telling me how to do the work. They will say that then the liability for things going wrong would obviously rest with you, if I'm just doing what you tell me to do and how to do it.'

Client: 'Hmm. I'll get back to you.'

It's an irrelevance to HMRC, but it's one more argument you can use with a client. It won't do any good if they are saying everyone is umbrella, of course. It's only useful for combating an inappropriate inside determination.

[cojak]

Thank you Carolyn.

An introduction was all we required.

[cwcsolutions]

This is not click bait it’s the basis for an argument if contractors find themselves being deemed inside.

It seems that hirers are issuing IR35 blanket determinations in the same way as almost all public sector bodies have since 2017, and perhaps the link to the underlying storyline wasn’t needed, but everything is linked.

Deeming contracts as being outside IR35 is basically an indication that hirers don’t want the responsibility of dealing with IR35 determinations, so be it if that’s going to be their policy, but it could be said that contractors have been working under their control, if that’s not so then that’s something contractors should raise, the insurance issue just puts that into perspective.

Whether anyone searches me, Carolyn Walsh or CWC Solutions, hardly matters I think. I have provided free advice for years on another forum and only dip in here occasionally, so there’s no need to think I’m trying to tread on anyone’s toes.

[Old Greg]

Not really. When a company joins with no person attached to it and looking as though they only post infomercials, I always get flinty-eyed...

True. You need to serve your time posting bollocks, before you start promoting your robust offshore contractor payment vehicles to discerning forum members. .

[cojak]

That looks like a worrying precedent.

Not really. When a company joins with no person attached to it and looking as though they only post infomercials, I always get flinty-eyed...

[Old Greg]

I do believe you're right NLUK.

And I am not best amused by it.

The OP does not really add anything to this forum and I am keeping my ere on them.

That looks like a worrying precedent.

[BR14]

I do believe you're right NLUK.

And I am not best amused by it.

The OP does not really add anything to this forum and I am keeping my ere on them.

ere! ere!

[cojak]

This looks like one of those linked in posts that connect two different things and just throws a question out there for people to muse over. Clickbait I think they call it.

I do believe you're right NLUK.

And I am not best amused by it.

The OP does not really add anything to this forum and I am keeping my ere on them.

[northernladuk]

I don't agree.

You can be inside for many different reasons. Lack of RoS on a secure site for example. It's not all just about control. Even if it is the scope of D&C still allows the contractor to use his PC without someone looking over his shoulder. All the D&C in the world isn't going to stop a contractor dropping a table with sensitive info on it or bringing a whole rack in a data center down opening himself up to a claim.

I'd have to go read the details of PI but even inside it's possible to open yourself up to some serious issues that only you are responsible for.

I do agree an employee doesn't need it and even an inside person won't because they will be covered by the Umbrella insurance.

This looks like one of those linked in posts that connect two different things and just throws a question out there for people to muse over. Clickbait I think they call it.

[cojak]

I agree. As an employee I think this is no longer required (and since so many don’t bother with it now, those of us that currently do have insurance are very much in the minority...).

I certainly don’t have it today.

[fidot]

If a client wishes to exert direction and control over a contractor, it surely also has accepted responsibility for decisions and work done.
To my way of thinking, requiring professional indemnity insurance is incongruous with an inside determination

My 2 cents

[cwcsolutions]

Tesco Bank Contractor Survival Guide: what to do if ‘inside IR35’ looms


This article is talking about IR35 insurance policies, but I wonder too how the ‘run off’ clauses under contractors’ Professional Indemnity insurance policies will stand up.

Wherever clients have effetively stated that the contractor has been working under their control all along, in the case of a disastrous error coming to light and causing an issue after the contractor has left, will the insurers pay out under contractors’ PI? I don’t think so.

The advice to read the small print on all contracts and insurance policies is very appropriate at this time; what you find may give clients something to think about.


Sent from my iPad using Contractor UK Forum