Reply to: What insurance has everybody got?

[malvolio]

So didn't add anything itself.

No, not at all - in the same way the CEO of your client doesn't have anything to do with you getting paid each week.

[GB9]

hired the best people to represent the contractors?

So didn't add anything itself.

[GB9]

Without wanting to get embroiled in a discussion about who does what better/cheaper (as you have said before, we aren't competitors), could we just clarify this? GB9 said he has 'PE/PI' with us (I assume he means PL/PI) - this isn't in PCG+ is it?

Basic tax enquiry insurance and the jury/legal/debt recovery would be a grand total of £183.

Yes pl/pi. And tlc for the mid tier. And the debt recovery. Im due a bulk discount plus marketing bonus! ;-)

[Contreras]

It's not so much ones attitude to risk that's important, but more the severity of the potential loss.

Low risk: It's unlikely the house will burn down - I take every care to make sure that doesn't happen. Yet I still have buildings insurance "just in case". The rebuild cost vs. insurance premium is say x2000 - and the insurance co. make a profit on that too, so I guess they rate it as a very low risk as well!

High risk: The dishwasher might pack up, but I don't pay for extended warranties. When it does, I'll buy a new one.

IR35: you do everything possible to stay outside. If you can demonstrate low risk then the insurers will cover full liability for a modest premium. My only concern here is the potential for the insurer to come back and say that facts about working practices were misrepresented (in light of an investigation) and cover is withdrawn.

When it comes to PL/PI/EL insurance there are also other factors at play. That is perceived business image, or contractual or legal obligations. This is akin to needing car insurance on a cheap run around.

[DieScum]

I don't buy building insurance because I believe that my house will burn or get swept by a tornado! I buy it because it gives me peace of mind. The same for life policy, It's there to protect my family against any hardship should I drop dead before I'm 70. The same applies for IR35 Tax Liability cover. It's there to mitigate the risk.

Guess it comes down to your attitude to risk. I don't have lots of insurance that others have.

Went away on holiday recently. Didn't take out the insurance option on the rental holiday car and don't have household insurance.

While we were away the house was broken in to and when taking the car back the rental firm claimed that they was a new dent and we'd have to pay.

... and you know what in both cases it wasn't that expensive to just deal with. We told the rental firm to beat it because we genuinely hadn't caused it and pointed out errors in their paperwork until they dropped it and the police caught the guy with out stuff. Only cost was new locks. Could have been much worse.

[Freelancer Financials]

Yeh. But my point is if your paying £30 per month over 20 years = £7200. If the insurers thought there was a good chance of you dying within this time and they'd have to shell out £300K it wouldn't be very good business would it?

As it is, they know on the basis of probabilities only a very small percentage will die and they'll have to shell out. Most will just cough up £7200 over 20 years.

I think this is what Malvolio meant. IR35 cover is relatively cheap for the possible high claim amount so, as with life cover, surely the insurer is confident that they wont have to pay out very often (like life insurance).

I appreciate the point that you and Malvolio are making, but that's not the argument Here. Actually, Kepuk articulated the point very well

"Insurance is what it is - simply a way of mitigating or eliminating future financial risk. There is a duty of care from the proposer to honestly offer all the relevant details and facts; the insurer then underwrites based on risk assessment of those exact facts, via actuarial calculations and historically relevant information".

No one disputes that IR35 and life cover is relatively cheap in relation to the high claim amount. This is because the actuarial calculations on the potential risk deem it so. And yes, insurers still make a ton of money, it's a good business to be in, unless of course there is a major catastrophe. Which does happen from time to time! But they do pay out, even if the premium is low relative to the claim.

I don't buy building insurance because I believe that my house will burn or get swept by a tornado! I buy it because it gives me peace of mind. The same for life policy, It's there to protect my family against any hardship should I drop dead before I'm 70. The same applies for IR35 Tax Liability cover. It's there to mitigate the risk.

[Qdos Contractor]

My point exactly. Apart from TLC35 (Abbey's Survive35 is roughly the same cost though), PCG+ gives you all that for £220 a year. How much did you spend?

Without wanting to get embroiled in a discussion about who does what better/cheaper (as you have said before, we aren't competitors), could we just clarify this? GB9 said he has 'PE/PI' with us (I assume he means PL/PI) - this isn't in PCG+ is it?

Basic tax enquiry insurance and the jury/legal/debt recovery would be a grand total of £183.

[psychocandy]

Hi Psychocandy,

A Life policy pays out on death or terminal illness. If you die whilst your insured they pay out (to your family or dependents, who ever the beneficiary is), it's as simple as that. The reason why Insurers can do this is because NOT everyone who takes out a policy will die at the same time. And also people these days typically live a lot longer. It's no different to a "death in service" policy that a employer takes out.

Life policy is NOT like critical illness or income protection, which is based on definitions of illness. You're either dead or alive? It's pretty straight forward.

For example, let's say you're 35 years old and you take out a Life Policy for a 25 year term. If you die after the age of 60 you get nothing.

However, if you die within the Insured term, the Insurers, can not refuse payout, if you die.

Yeh. But my point is if your paying £30 per month over 20 years = £7200. If the insurers thought there was a good chance of you dying within this time and they'd have to shell out £300K it wouldn't be very good business would it?

As it is, they know on the basis of probabilities only a very small percentage will die and they'll have to shell out. Most will just cough up £7200 over 20 years.

I think this is what Malvolio meant. IR35 cover is relatively cheap for the possible high claim amount so, as with life cover, surely the insurer is confident that they wont have to pay out very often (like life insurance).

[TheFaQQer]

I also have travel insurance which covers me while I'm abroad on business.

I've had a few trips overseas, and I wouldn't want to fall ill in America (for example) without a decent insurance policy.

[malvolio]

I agree with pretty much everything you say, however I can't see what role the PCG has played in getting us where we are. Where we are seems to have been driven by appeals, facilitated by specialists, not the PCG. My understanding is the PCG farms out to other companies.

Ignoring the minor detail that the PCG brought most of those cases to court in the first place and hired the best people to represent the contractors?

Anyway, on the subject of the OP, I have QDOS PE/PI, TLC365, Jury / Legal / Payment Recovery (this is great VFM), and some hardware insurance. I have used the Payment Recovery insurance and it worked treat.

My point exactly. Apart from TLC35 (Abbey's Survive35 is roughly the same cost though), PCG+ gives you all that for £220 a year. How much did you spend?

[GB9]

Disagree. There is firm case law regarding IR35, driven by tribunal appeals funded by the various insirance providers. The lack of clarity is down to the refusal to accept that contractors are separate businesses an dall the agency FUD that is used to secure their business. The BETs are an irrelevance anyway, since they are so far from reality: unless you decide to use them to indicate that you are caught by IR35 as opposed to being liable for investigation for being caught, which is what the Alexander review has made happen.
Because (a) it will take time to send back the ones already here that can be sent back that were allowed in under the old rules and (b) the Anti-Business Secretary has bought the lie that we don't have a skilled workforce of our own so is positively encouraging the importation of cheap labour.

I agree with pretty much everything you say, however I can't see what role the PCG has played in getting us where we are. Where we are seems to have been driven by appeals, facilitated by specialists, not the PCG. My understanding is the PCG farms out to other companies.

Anyway, on the subject of the OP, I have QDOS PE/PI, TLC365, Jury / Legal / Payment Recovery (this is great VFM), and some hardware insurance. I have used the Payment Recovery insurance and it worked treat.

[malvolio]

There is no clarity over IR35....just confusion and interpretation. e.g. the BETs are hardly a positive result, and the advice from most advisory bodies is that they do not actually reflect the law.

Disagree. There is firm case law regarding IR35, driven by tribunal appeals funded by the various insirance providers. The lack of clarity is down to the refusal to accept that contractors are separate businesses an dall the agency FUD that is used to secure their business. The BETs are an irrelevance anyway, since they are so far from reality: unless you decide to use them to indicate that you are caught by IR35 as opposed to being liable for investigation for being caught, which is what the Alexander review has made happen.

And if bringing in temporary non-EU people is so difficult, then why are half the posts on his board about Bob's doing a poor job for half the expected rate?

Because (a) it will take time to send back the ones already here that can be sent back that were allowed in under the old rules and (b) the Anti-Business Secretary has bought the lie that we don't have a skilled workforce of our own so is positively encouraging the importation of cheap labour.

[GB9]

You've not been paying attention then.

Most of the current clarity over IR35, such as it is, has been driven by the PCGs's efforts over the last 13 years. They had persuaded the Tories that they should kill it off, but once elected Osborne decided he would rather keep it on the statute books to prevent Friday to Monday. Work since then has been about defining the scope of who should be caught, but if the senior Civil Servants in the Treasury and HMRC collectviely refuse to listen to expert advice and go their own way, there' s not a hell of a lot anyone can do about it.

You should also read George Young's recent statement on the flexible economy, most of which was driven by PCG's lobbying efforts. Also, you aren't paying taxes on your wife's dividends, bringing in temporary non-EU people to steal our jobs is now a lot more difficult and far less cost-effective, there is now absolute clarity over when you can demand security clearance when applying for a role (which the agencies are ignoring of course, but that will change) and right now PCG are working to get the Alexander review sorted so that anyone going for a public sector role is not forced to apply IR35 whether it is right to do so or not.

As I said, PCG is about a lot more than IR35 insurance.

There is no clarity over IR35....just confusion and interpretation. e.g. the BETs are hardly a positive result, and the advice from most advisory bodies is that they do not actually reflect the law.

And if bringing in temporary non-EU people is so difficult, then why are half the posts on his board about Bob's doing a poor job for half the expected rate?

[Freelancer Financials]

Yes. But surely the insurer is working out here that if they take £20 a month off you, on average, you aint going to claim? Otherwise, they'd be stupid paying out £300K when they know theres a good chance of you claiming......

Hi Psychocandy,

A Life policy pays out on death or terminal illness. If you die whilst your insured they pay out (to your family or dependents, who ever the beneficiary is), it's as simple as that. The reason why Insurers can do this is because NOT everyone who takes out a policy will die at the same time. And also people these days typically live a lot longer. It's no different to a "death in service" policy that a employer takes out.

Life policy is NOT like critical illness or income protection, which is based on definitions of illness. You're either dead or alive? It's pretty straight forward.

For example, let's say you're 35 years old and you take out a Life Policy for a 25 year term. If you die after the age of 60 you get nothing.

However, if you die within the Insured term, the Insurers, can not refuse payout, if you die.

[malvolio]

From what I have seen of the PCG, it has done nothing to alleviate IR35, either in terms of stopping it dead, or even in terms of clarifying it. Minutes from the meetings with HMRC suggest it is completely ignored. What was the last IR35 thing it achieved?

You've not been paying attention then.

Most of the current clarity over IR35, such as it is, has been driven by the PCGs's efforts over the last 13 years. They had persuaded the Tories that they should kill it off, but once elected Osborne decided he would rather keep it on the statute books to prevent Friday to Monday. Work since then has been about defining the scope of who should be caught, but if the senior Civil Servants in the Treasury and HMRC collectviely refuse to listen to expert advice and go their own way, there' s not a hell of a lot anyone can do about it.

You should also read George Young's recent statement on the flexible economy, most of which was driven by PCG's lobbying efforts. Also, you aren't paying taxes on your wife's dividends, bringing in temporary non-EU people to steal our jobs is now a lot more difficult and far less cost-effective, there is now absolute clarity over when you can demand security clearance when applying for a role (which the agencies are ignoring of course, but that will change) and right now PCG are working to get the Alexander review sorted so that anyone going for a public sector role is not forced to apply IR35 whether it is right to do so or not.

As I said, PCG is about a lot more than IR35 insurance.