Reply to: QDOS insurance invalidated once stop working via LTD company?

[eek]

Except it makes no sense. How can you have a contract with a legal entity that no longer exists...?

Isn't it the same as death, until the will is completed executed things can still occur.

If there is an IR35 tax dispute HMRC could try to reopen the company so it's simpler all round for QDOS to assume it still exists and try to stop the case early.

Heck I suspect the first letter would read:-

XYZ limited was closed and struck off on date. On other date HMRC was notified during after which they had until (insert date here) to raise their objection.

Your inability to raise the issue then is not our problem..

[malvolio]

And how easy was that to do. No need to start any threads or anything

Except it makes no sense. How can you have a contract with a legal entity that no longer exists...?

[northernladuk]

I have TLC35 with QDOS and my company name is listed as the policy holder. I contacted QDOS today about it and was told that even if i close my company the policy is still valid with the company name as the policy holder.

It simple just contact them then at least you have some evidence rather than relying on forum responses.

And how easy was that to do. No need to start any threads or anything

[aligning2020]

Thanks for everyone’s input and help here.

[Smuz]

I have TLC35 with QDOS and my company name is listed as the policy holder. I contacted QDOS today about it and was told that even if i close my company the policy is still valid with the company name as the policy holder.

It simple just contact them then at least you have some evidence rather than relying on forum responses.

[aligning2020]

Correct. And anybody else with a QDOS policy reading this thread, who choose to, should also now be able to make their own assessments as well. So hopefully it has been of some use.

[Paralytic]

Precisely. So if you look on your policy schedule and the policyholder is set to director’s actual name then the policy would remain valid of this clause. If however it was set to the company name, it wouldn’t.

Have a policy.

Since you have a policy, which is it? It seems you have everything in your power to answer the question.

[BABABlackSheep]

Already am doing as I’ve said. Don’t see how that detracts from the benefit of this thread opening other people’s eyes up to reviewing their own QDOS insurance should they have it, and discussion of interpretations of the policy.

It doesn't, its a good point, they are just pointing out that anyone could answer this within 5 mins. So it would be a FYI rather than a question.

Anyway, I'm going to renew my IPSE+ membership before I close my Limited Company for the exact reason this is related to....retrospective investigations.

[aligning2020]

Already am doing as I’ve said. Don’t see how that detracts from the benefit of this thread opening other people’s eyes up to reviewing their own QDOS insurance should they have it, and discussion of interpretations of the policy.

[northernladuk]

Have a policy.

So read it and speak to the people you've bought it off.

[aligning2020]

Just out of interest. Do you actually have a policy with QDOS or are you just trying to evaluate it?

Have a policy.

[aligning2020]

Precisely. So if you look on your policy schedule and the policyholder is set to director’s actual name then the policy would remain valid of this clause. If however it was set to the company name, it wouldn’t.

[northernladuk]

Does it actually depend on what the “policy holder” is set to on the policy? I.e. the main director or the company name itself.

Just out of interest. Do you actually have a policy with QDOS or are you just trying to evaluate it?

[Paralytic]

Does it actually depend on what the “policy holder” is set to on the policy? I.e. the main director or the company name itself.

It already defines what the Policyholder is

The company, firm, partnership, association, individual or any other entity specified in the Policy Schedule.

[aligning2020]

Does it actually depend on what the “policy holder” is set to on the policy? I.e. the main director or the company name itself.