Trucker56:
Public liability being if you delivered to a shop and left a pallet on the street and somebody walked into it or if it fell off onto a member of the public. If your delivering to yards depots etc where the public don’t have access then no problem.
Im not 100% on this but this is how i understand it to be. Ive been Ltd for two years now and nobody has asked to see any insurance, I take most of mine through agency but do private work as well.
Employers Liability covers your employees & subcontractors etc for accidents due to your companies negligence, Public Liability covers everyone else including the yard you’re delivering to.
PL cover is similar cover to the third party element of your car insurance in that it covers damage to everyone else excluding your employees / subcontractors who if you injure are covered by the EL cover (If you have it)
21 posts and no sight nor sound of Conor’s IR35 record yet? Is he ill?
The agency I contract to wanted PLI when I first signed up with them so I told them I had it but the “paperwork is at home, I’ll scan it and email it to you”. It was quickly forgotten about once I was earning them some brass but the topic comes up every year, usually around the time I start talking about a rate increase - “oh yeah, I keep forgetting about that, just been so busy lately, leave it with me and I’ll get it sorted for you” and that’s the end of the discussion til next year.
Carl Usher:
The agency I contract to wanted PLI when I first signed up with them so I told them I had it but the “paperwork is at home, I’ll scan it and email it to you”. It was quickly forgotten about once I was earning them some brass but the topic comes up every year, usually around the time I start talking about a rate increase - “oh yeah, I keep forgetting about that, just been so busy lately, leave it with me and I’ll get it sorted for you” and that’s the end of the discussion til next year.
So in effect they think you have PLI because you have lead them to believe you have it, there will no doubt be a condition in the small print you signed, when you signed up with said agency (you did read the small print didn’t you? ) stating that you will have PLI, and that any loses I incured by the agency will be covered by your (non existent) PLI, so IF the worse case scenario happens be prepared to bend over into positions you never imagined to be shafted. This is why you shouldn’t work for these agencies (who insist on PLI), because IMO bluffing it is a much more stupid thing to do
You cannot insure the same thing ‘twice’. The Agency or company in which you are placed must have ‘PLI’ therefore yours would be worthless as only one can be valid in any one claim.
Carl Usher:
The agency I contract to wanted PLI when I first signed up with them so I told them I had it but the “paperwork is at home, I’ll scan it and email it to you”. It was quickly forgotten about once I was earning them some brass but the topic comes up every year, usually around the time I start talking about a rate increase - “oh yeah, I keep forgetting about that, just been so busy lately, leave it with me and I’ll get it sorted for you” and that’s the end of the discussion til next year.
So in effect they think you have PLI because you have lead them to believe you have it, there will no doubt be a condition in the small print you signed, when you signed up with said agency (you did read the small print didn’t you? ) stating that you will have PLI, and that any loses I incured by the agency will be covered by your (non existent) PLI, so IF the worse case scenario happens be prepared to bend over into positions you never imagined to be shafted. This is why you shouldn’t work for these agencies (who insist on PLI), because IMO bluffing it is a much more stupid thing to do
I have done no such thing and only a genuine thick ■■■■ would sign their standard terms (which all the agencies use). They work to my terms which suitably exonerate me from any liability should the ■■■■ hit the fan. The fact that they probably never bothered to read them is not my problem. They are worded such that any assignment undertaken is considered acceptance of the terms. Any business or person in their right mind would ensure those safeguards were in place before doing any work for them.
I did already have one guy who was working for my client’s customer try to claim from me for an alleged injury whilst loading a truck I was driving for them and it got to the point where I received a letter from their solicitor saying I was being sued. There were various meetings held over it but eventually it fizzled out once I presented them with another copy of the T&Cs which their TM had signed a couple of years prior.
There is no need to have PLI imho if you word your T&Cs right and let’s not forget that ltd cos are called “limited companies” for a good reason… .
Honestscott76:
You cannot insure the same thing ‘twice’. The Agency or company in which you are placed must have ‘PLI’ therefore yours would be worthless as only one can be valid in any one claim.
Yes you can Insure the same thing twice.
It’s perfectly normal for a chain of businesses and (Genuine) subcontractors to each arrange Insurance and for claims to cascade through the chain.
Honestscott76:
You cannot insure the same thing ‘twice’. The Agency or company in which you are placed must have ‘PLI’ therefore yours would be worthless as only one can be valid in any one claim.
Yes you can Insure the same thing twice.
It’s perfectly normal for a chain of businesses and (Genuine) subcontractors to each arrange Insurance and for claims to cascade through the chain.
No you cannot!
May I suggest You try insuring your car ‘twice’ and then attempt to claim on both policies.
The same goes for house insurance.
For instance:
Let’s say you had a burglary and your TV gets stolen and you have ‘two’ insurance policies. Once one insurance policy has replaced the TV you are no longer ‘at loss’, therefore any further claim on the second policy would be deemed as fraudulent.
3 wheeler:
I bet he is just driving…until the new rules start in April 16 when it all changes and the brown stuff hits the fan !
Just read the first draft that hmrc have released, it will bring an end to the loophole for good. And some big bills at the end of the year for those they deem to in reality to be employees.( agencies will will for run cover and hide behind better solicitors )
The above proves the poster hasn’t read or understood this document. Just another attempt at scare mongering.
The Ltd loophole is not being closed. It is proposed (the efficient government machine hasn’t got it through into law yet) that the Private Service Company (which is what all Ltd drivers essentially are) will not be able to claim tax relief on travel and subsistence payments.
I agree this will make it less financially advantageous from a tax perspective to be set up using the Ltd model. It being less advantageous may make many not do it. Some may continue to be limited because it suits them to pay tax this way.
Where the poster can justify the " big bills at the end of the year" comment. To anybody who reads the link provided it is clearly obvious that the proposal (which is what it is not law yet) is to be in effect from the next tax year. It never mentions back dating, as long as the law is followed (if passed) no bills we be landing.
The original comment is that misguided and frankly stupid even Conor hasn’t jumped on it. Says a lot. The fact the poster then provides a link to the information that when read proves his original comment to be a load of bs is beyond belief.
The sooner these boards get to be an exchange of fact that is useful for people trying to make a living the better. Why should a driver who chooses not to be employed in the traditional sense be subject to this constant stream of mis-information.
Is it time for a separate board for Agency/Ltd topics. It’s clear that the fact we work differently and have been paying less tax for the past number of years upsets some of the wage slaves. If the discussion is somewhere else they won’t have to read it and post rubbish like the above…
Honestscott76:
You cannot insure the same thing ‘twice’. The Agency or company in which you are placed must have ‘PLI’ therefore yours would be worthless as only one can be valid in any one claim.
Yes you can Insure the same thing twice.
It’s perfectly normal for a chain of businesses and (Genuine) subcontractors to each arrange Insurance and for claims to cascade through the chain.
No you cannot!
May I suggest You try insuring your car ‘twice’ and then attempt to claim on both policies.
The same goes for house insurance.
For instance:
Let’s say you had a burglary and your TV gets stolen and you have ‘two’ insurance policies. Once one insurance policy has replaced the TV you are no longer ‘at loss’, therefore any further claim on the second policy would be deemed as fraudulent.
My reply was to someone saying as the agency carries insurance there could be no claim against a genuine subcontractors own insurance.
Either way It’s in no way illegal to insure a car or even your home twice or as many times as you want.
In the instance where your home was insured twice (which is not that unusual as people often omit to cancel their cover when they move Insurers) there are agreed protocols in place for the claim to either be equally paid by each Insurer or by one insurer depending when the claim originally developed.
It’s only illegal to try and financially benefit by claiming separately from each Insurer
How do you think Public Liability works on a big building contract where there’s a main contractor and numerous bonafide subcontractors working on the site. Do you think just the main contractor carries the risk and insurance for every bonafide subcontractor?
If you believe Insurer a car more than once, perhaps you should inform the companies offering Test Drive / Short Term Insurance or the companies that allow a learner driver to arrange a separate policy on their parents car that they’re breaking the law.
Please feel free to reference the law relevant law that backs up your argument.
I agree it’s not illegal to have multiple policies but as I pointed out may be deemed fraudulent in the event you try to claim the full amount from both policies.
Here is a link that supports and clarifies both arguments:
Carl Usher:
The agency I contract to wanted PLI when I first signed up with them so I told them I had it but the “paperwork is at home, I’ll scan it and email it to you”. It was quickly forgotten about once I was earning them some brass but the topic comes up every year, usually around the time I start talking about a rate increase - “oh yeah, I keep forgetting about that, just been so busy lately, leave it with me and I’ll get it sorted for you” and that’s the end of the discussion til next year.
So in effect they think you have PLI because you have lead them to believe you have it, there will no doubt be a condition in the small print you signed, when you signed up with said agency (you did read the small print didn’t you? ) stating that you will have PLI, and that any loses I incured by the agency will be covered by your (non existent) PLI, so IF the worse case scenario happens be prepared to bend over into positions you never imagined to be shafted. This is why you shouldn’t work for these agencies (who insist on PLI), because IMO bluffing it is a much more stupid thing to do
I have done no such thing and only a genuine thick [zb] would sign their standard terms (which all the agencies use). They work to my terms which suitably exonerate me from any liability should the [zb] hit the fan. The fact that they probably never bothered to read them is not my problem. They are worded such that any assignment undertaken is considered acceptance of the terms. Any business or person in their right mind would ensure those safeguards were in place before doing any work for them.
I did already have one guy who was working for my client’s customer try to claim from me for an alleged injury whilst loading a truck I was driving for them and it got to the point where I received a letter from their solicitor saying I was being sued. There were various meetings held over it but eventually it fizzled out once I presented them with another copy of the T&Cs which their TM had signed a couple of years prior.
There is no need to have PLI imho if you word your T&Cs right and let’s not forget that ltd cos are called “limited companies” for a good reason… .
I signed the agencies t&c’s when I was PAYE. Unfortunately, when I changed to Ltd they neglected to get me to sign a new set of terms, this is now coming back to them on the arse. Neither is there, in their ‘terms’, any mention of reimbursing them for any losses. This also is now coming back to bite them on the arse.
It was quickly forgotten about once I was earning them some brass but the topic comes up every year, usually around the time I start talking about a rate increase - “oh yeah, I keep forgetting about that, just been so busy lately, leave it with me and I’ll get it sorted for you” 
) stating that you will have PLI, and that any loses I incured by the agency will be covered by your (non existent) PLI, so IF the worse case scenario happens be prepared to bend over into positions you never imagined to be shafted. This is why you shouldn’t work for these agencies (who insist on PLI), because IMO bluffing it is a much more stupid thing to do 
.