Reply to: QDOS - TLC35 liability cover endorsement - makes cover worthless.

[CodeDonkey]

Indeed before the U-turn, they were telling me they'd drop the case immediately by invoking that very clause.

Whether they actually intend to honor their commitment now or will still find a way to bail out again at a later stage is anyone's guess really. But despite my doubts about their sincerity, I choose to error on the side of "maybe" rather than save myself the yearly premiums. And of course hoping I'll never need to find this out in practice.

But if I do have this misfortune to put this insurance to the test, then you can expect this thread to be bumped in a few years from now.

So make what you will of all this. Given what I've experienced, I certainly would not encourage people to put too much faith in this insurance package. But only way to know for sure would be to hear independent stories of success and failure... of which there are none so far AFAICT.

[northernladuk]

they'll still pay out though I believe. As long as the insurance was taken in good faith.

I very much doubt that. Their clause explicity says it won't. Insurances are well known for paying when they don't have to aren't they.....

[Lance]

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread again so not sure if it's been mentioned but remember there is a clause where they won't defend a case that's likely to lose. If you purchased it in good faith with, lets say, a valid RoS and at some point the client confirms it will not accept a RoS so likely to fail in court then they will not defend it.

they'll still pay out though I believe. As long as the insurance was taken in good faith.

[northernladuk]

The good news is that I've now had it confirmed in writing that what Qdos have posted in this thread will apply in my case. i.e., that it was my knowledge of things at the time I purchased the insurance that will ultimately matter for my cover..

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread again so not sure if it's been mentioned but remember there is a clause where they won't defend a case that's likely to lose. If you purchased it in good faith with, lets say, a valid RoS and at some point the client confirms it will not accept a RoS so likely to fail in court then they will not defend it.

[CodeDonkey]

That's not just an insurance thing. Sales is about telling people what they want to hear to make the sale, and hope that you're not around if an issue arises.



...and get it in writing. Did you get it in writing?

Yes, eventually.

[Paralytic]

I guess moral of the story is that in the case of insurance of any kind, re-assurances from sales folk may not match up with what you hear when you report an actual problem.

That's not just an insurance thing. Sales is about telling people what they want to hear to make the sale, and hope that you're not around if an issue arises.

But keep arguing your case, and remind them of what they've said in other instances. It's by no means guaranteed to help you in the end... but it just might.

...and get it in writing. Did you get it in writing?

[CodeDonkey]

Good insurer, bad insurer... good insurer

So I think I should share the resolution to my story, in the hope it might help others make informed decisions.

The good news is that I've now had it confirmed in writing that what Qdos have posted in this thread will apply in my case. i.e., that it was my knowledge of things at the time I purchased the insurance that will ultimately matter for my cover.

But the road to here was pretty long and painful. Another chat with them had again completely contradicted what's been posted in this thread - and ended up with them even trying to convince me to cancel the insurance in exchange for a refund.
Their complete U-turn really came straight out of the blue. And I can only speculate on the actual reasons for this.

I guess moral of the story is that in the case of insurance of any kind, re-assurances from sales folk may not match up with what you hear when you report an actual problem. But keep arguing your case, and remind them of what they've said in other instances. It's by no means guaranteed to help you in the end... but it just might.

[CompoundOverload]

I've got something similar. Am negotiating direct with client, and they've inserted a clause saying I'd be liable for any penalties, fines etc arising in connection with any TAX, NI or other payments of a fiscal nature which that incur as a result of the engagement.

I wonder if this will be the new norm? or if it's even enforceable by law. I'll need to get it legally reviewed.

Sounds like an outside/inside arrangement to me.

All the benefits of being outside with the risks of being inside.

Same as always then.

[escapeUK]

I've got something similar. Am negotiating direct with client, and they've inserted a clause saying I'd be liable for any penalties, fines etc arising in connection with any TAX, NI or other payments of a fiscal nature which that incur as a result of the engagement.

I wonder if this will be the new norm? or if it's even enforceable by law. I'll need to get it legally reviewed.

That sounds pretty good to me. I bet a lot of people would welcome such a clause with an outside status.

[flippyflappy]

So, I've been given an outside statement from the client - just a one liner confirming they have classified me as outside based on my working practices.

However, the agency have said they need to re-issue me with a new contract and that "I'm" supposed to get IR35 insurance (they don't already know I have this but any idea why they would request to me get this, when it's the agent and the client that are responsible for any tax that is due if they incorrectly assess me?

I've got something similar. Am negotiating direct with client, and they've inserted a clause saying I'd be liable for any penalties, fines etc arising in connection with any TAX, NI or other payments of a fiscal nature which that incur as a result of the engagement.

I wonder if this will be the new norm? or if it's even enforceable by law. I'll need to get it legally reviewed.

[northernladuk]

Agree with you there!

I just got defensive and assumed they had some hidden clause to put the liability back on me.

IMO if you keep thinking like that you should be fine. I've a feeling that's what's going to happen sometime in the future despite the clients risk rhetoric.

[CompoundOverload]

It's because agencies are clueless

Agree with you there!

I just got defensive and assumed they had some hidden clause to put the liability back on me.

[northernladuk]

So, I've been given an outside statement from the client - just a one liner confirming they have classified me as outside based on my working practices.

However, the agency have said they need to re-issue me with a new contract and that "I'm" supposed to get IR35 insurance (they don't already know I have this but any idea why they would request to me get this, when it's the agent and the client that are responsible for any tax that is due if they incorrectly assess me?

It's because agencies are clueless

[CompoundOverload]

Worryingly late! They reckon another week!

Gave them until next week otherwise bye bye.

So, I've been given an outside statement from the client - just a one liner confirming they have classified me as outside based on my working practices.

However, the agency have said they need to re-issue me with a new contract and that "I'm" supposed to get IR35 insurance (they don't already know I have this but any idea why they would request to me get this, when it's the agent and the client that are responsible for any tax that is due if they incorrectly assess me?

[CompoundOverload]

Jesus. They are leaving it late!!

Worryingly late! They reckon another week!

Gave them until next week otherwise bye bye.