Employers Liability Insurance and Opting In

[Contractoid]

Why would you do that when legitimate cover is available from QDOS for £46? The fact you would even entertain anything as stupid as this is a tad eye opening....if it's even true....

Public and Employers Liability - Public Liability Insurance - Employers Liability Insurance - Liability Insurance - Qdos Consulting

And what is this shackles of chairmanship on your accountant about?

Well since the aforementioned letter did the trick I will look forward to spending the saved £46 for legitimate unnecessary cover on something nice. But thanks for the tip and if I ever need proper cover I will know where to go.

Not. Chairmanship. Secretaryship I meant to say kind sir. It is allowed don't you know. Enjoying my last few days of late nights up and to many Gin and Tonics.

[northernladuk]

My broker quoted £50 for a "sham" cover which provided the necessary paperwork on the understanding that I would never use it. Don't you just love the insurance industry. Yes, we will provide you with a document that effectively covers you for bugger all......for a modest fee old chap nudge, nudge, wink, wink, so no moooorrrree!

Why would you do that when legitimate cover is available from QDOS for £46? The fact you would even entertain anything as stupid as this is a tad eye opening....if it's even true....

Public and Employers Liability - Public Liability Insurance - Employers Liability Insurance - Liability Insurance - Qdos Consulting

And what is this shackles of chairmanship on your accountant about?

[Contractoid]

No, NLUK is nearly right. It's misnamed, it is required for any worker under your control. If you need to send in a substitute, either an employee or a sub-contractor, you will need ELI. Hence, not having makes your RoS look like a sham.

OK get everyone's point on this. I have recently placed the shackles of Chairmanship onto my accountant so that area is covered. Would be interested to know how many of us have actually used the RoS clause in reality and been accepted by the end client!

And since it costs about four pence compared to the costs of PI and PLI, just take it.

My broker quoted £50 for a "sham" cover which provided the necessary paperwork on the understanding that I would never use it. Don't you just love the insurance industry. Yes, we will provide you with a document that effectively covers you for bugger all......for a modest fee old chap nudge, nudge, wink, wink, so no moooorrrree!

[malvolio]

No, NLUK is nearly right. It's misnamed, it is required for any worker under your control. If you need to send in a substitute, either an employee or a sub-contractor, you will need ELI. Hence, not having makes your RoS look like a sham.

And since it costs about four pence compared to the costs of PI and PLI, just take it.

[northernladuk]

Is your wife a director of your company? If she is you have to have EL by law.

[SueEllen]

There is no linkage between having EL and the other acts.

The only real reason to have it is because it apparently makes you look like a business if you want to exercise your right of substitution.

And yes I've been through this tosh with agents. I just tell them firmly what is what happily copying and pasting them links they don't understand.

However for years I've actually had EL because I have a couple of other insurances bundled in that I want/need on different contracts so the EL costs nothing.

[northernladuk]

Well if you have a RoS clause in they could think you would be sending an employee in so would need the insurance?

[Contractoid]

Starting a new gig soon and have decided to take the sound advice on the site and opt in for Conduct of employment agencies 2003 act. Have yet to see my contract yet but the agency's standard requirements for cover include Employers Liability. This is the first time I have come across this (I have cover for the standard PI and Public Liability). According to a couple of .gov sites companies with single employees with that employee having majority shareholding are exempt. (That'd be me then). Da! Why would I sue my own company!

The agency in question accepted this (asked for a letter from myself stating that I am happy that my own company, that I own, does not have this cover ). Just wondering whether others have been through this tosh and also if there may be any implications or linkages to the Agencies Act?