Why bother?

[hedge mong]

Why bother with insurance.

Just tell the customer your not insured and price the job accordingly.

After all people want stuff done cheap these days so why bother....

 

[Mick Dempsey]

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Mick Dempsey

[hedge mong]

Two blank links

[hedge mong]

Seriously.

 

It's not a legal requirement 

[Steve Bullman]

28 minutes ago, hedge mong said:

Seriously.

 

It's not a legal requirement 

You are correct, its not. Depends how much you value your livelihood because if you have an accident and heaven forbid end up seriously hurting someone or even killing them you can bet your ass they'll be having your house off you. Probably as good a reason as any.

 

Plus public liability isn't even all that expensive. Its employers liability thats the killer, and that one IS a legal requirement.

[Dan Maynard]

Tool and plant insurance is my killer.

[hedge mong]

10 hours ago, Dan Maynard said:

Tool and plant insurance is my killer.

Yup.

Tool insurance is bad.

I have some kit that could be replaced every few years at the cost of insurance so I just don't bother.

Had kit go over the years so I'm not living in a perfect world but seriously to be competitive on prices and maintain work coming in its just not viable.

Customers understand when you say to them no comeback on any damages and don't work in public areas where the stupid appear for a look up the tree and crack on ...

[manco]

11 hours ago, Steve Bullman said:

You are correct, its not. Depends how much you value your livelihood because if you have an accident and heaven forbid end up seriously hurting someone or even killing them you can bet your ass they'll be having your house off you. Probably as good a reason as any.

 

Plus public liability isn't even all that expensive. Its employers liability thats the killer, and that one IS a legal requirement.

but will the insurance not try every single possible trick to wriggle out of paying anyway? 

and find some tiny thing you did wrong and you still end up taking the hit? 

im fully insured, for a few years when i started i wasnt, its made very little difference i can see to any work ive done

beyond legal requirement i see the argument for not having it, feels like a waste of money

but the cost is fairly easily absorbed over the year if work is steady

 

[Dan Maynard]

52 minutes ago, hedge mong said:

Customers understand when you say to them no comeback on any damages and don't work in public areas where the stupid appear for a look up the tree and crack on ...

Your customer may be very reasonable and agree to this but if you smash nextdoors fence then it's not your customer that will come after you.

 

I have been told about a tree surgeon being pursued by the insurance company which had to pay for a new roof on a thatched cottage. He plainly wasn't liable but it cost his insurance £10k in legal fees to defend the case. 

 

Public liability costs me a few hundred, wouldn't work without it. 

[hedge mong]

It's money for old rope.

It's not a legal requirement and in no way are you responsible for any damages that may occur if the customer agrees to it.

Defence of a fraudulent claim against is easy you just tell them to 8ugger off.

 

Don't pay solicitors

Don't pay fraudulent insurance premiums

Don't work for people who think it's necessary.

 

Job quotes are 30% or so less and if you are not Vat registered  that way the customer wins.

This results in steady well paid work without the bullplop of all the bits of paper that may as well be blank for what you pay out these days.

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by hedge mong