UKTC Archive

Re: Time to think - INSURANCE

Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE
From: Jim Quaife
Date: Dec 23 2003 19:15:00
Merry Christmas and all.
500% IS the figure.  If the problem were only 10% we wouldn't be having this
With regard to the relative RL requirements of employees, subs and bought
services, there is no simple benchmark (is there ever?)
If you are employing someone to do your bidding, but by using skills that
you have no professional abilities with, that is a straighforward
contractual arrangement.  For instance, you may know how to hang wallpaper,
but when you employ a decorator, he or she gets on with it and is not your
At the other end of the scale a PAYE employee with a contract of employment
is also straightforward.
The use of a sub-contractor as part of your commercial or gainful activity
is employment.  It does not matter whether you are personnaly skilled at the
particular operation, they are contributing to the profitability of your
There are inevitably grey areas.  However, you must make sure that YOU are
covered whatever else may happen.  To that end you have little choice but to
assume that you are the employer, because what you may regard as an
insurance overlap will in all likelihood not be regarded as such by the
other insurer.
Why am I in my office at 7pm when I could be swilling a glass of plonk?
Bl***y good question!
Jim Q
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: "UK Tree Care" <>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE

In a message dated 20/12/2003 17:49:55 GMT Standard Time, writes:

The assumption is that whoever you "hire" to
carry out work is an employee, in insurance terms.

That maybe so but it doesn't stop Axa from claiming 2 premiums on the same
job does it. Potentially if Ken gets me to do a job for him and then I get
Forestry associate to do some winching or something, he's insured, I'm
and Kens insured! 3 premiums on the same job!

And where did you get that 500% figure from Jim? I think you're getting
up: The reserves put aside for old claims has gone up by 500% according to
the AA website. I thought David Hewitt said that costs were outstripping
premiums by about 10% but I can't find that in the blurb. Anyway that
would seem to
justify a premium hike of 10% not 200%. If you'd been trading for a year
discovered that your turnover was down 10% on your revenue would you
triple your
prices? I suspect not. Double them perhaps if you were determined to get
of the less profitable clients but triple?

It seems to me that we should encourage AXA to get out of insurance
altogether; that would reduce their risks. The trouble is they are
virtually a monopoly
at the moment so some porsche driving wonder kid in the city can do
he likes.

Perhaps the MMC (Monopolies Commission) should get involved?

And while we're on the subject why is there only one MMC?


The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre