|
|
 
|
| Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:37 AM | |
| dicini No longer a member |  Quote from squodgeThis is absolute rubbish. Wot he said ...  |
 |   |
| Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:56 AM | ||
 Location United Kingdom Hampshire Petersfield | Quote from squodge This is absolute rubbish. I studied employment law, and this scenario would at best be one of independent contractor, NOT employee. And even there, you would need a contract signed and dated before anything could be proven to the courts (and the courts wouldn't even entertain such trivial matters). ~ squodge ~ You might have studied employment law BUT it does not make you an expert. If you know better than the DSS, HMRC (tax office) and an employment QC specialist then so be it. I would rather pay a few pounds and be safe. |
|
| |
|
| Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:47 AM | ||
Location United Kingdom Derbyshire Derby | Quote from flashman You might have studied employment law BUT it does not make you an expert. If you know better than the DSS, HMRC (tax office) and an employment QC specialist then so be it. I would rather pay a few pounds and be safe. To be accurate, your statement would have to reflect official advice, considered by their legal department, in respect of all the departments you mention. Furthermore, it would depend upon you having asked exactly the right question. In any discussion with a legal beagle, especially one done in writing, they will answer exactly the question asked. The trouble is, the untrained person, who is unfamiliar with interpreting law, still has to overcome their ignorance when reading the answer. I wish I had a pound for every person I know who has thoroughly misunderstood advice properly given to them. Furthermore, any department can make mistakes when it comes to the law, and they frequently do. The current situation with the Video Recordings Act is a fairly good example. Don't think for a moment that advisors are never wrong. In 30 years of law enforcement employment I've seen too many mistakes made by such people, lawyers, allsorts. As a further thought, having insurance doesn't automatically make you 'safe'. Insurance companies, and especially brokers, will sell you anything you ask for. When it comes to a big claim, and any serious injury to a model will be a big claim, they will wriggle out of it any way they can. It might be an idea to check your car insurance if you take models to locations. A car crash and facial injury will result in a massive claim. Just ring an insurance company and ask for a quote, telling them you are an actor. |
|
| |
|
| Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:23 PM | |
| sickpics No longer a member | If you hire a model on here 1:1 then they are self employed and should be insured accordingly. If you hire a model from an agency, it is the agency that should provide the cover. If you shoot someone's wedding, christening, bar mitzvah, whatever, then you should be insured. As a self employer photographer you should have: Employer’s liability insurance - if you use second shooters/ assistants even if they work for free. Vehicles insurance - Obviously. Public liability insurance - Obviously. Health and accident insurance - For your own piece of mind. Also, should have equipment insurance. I just got a quote from photoguard which seemed reasonable. |
| |
| Friday, November 13, 2009 2:45 AM | ||
 Location United Kingdom West Glamorgan Llanelli | Quote from flashman You might have studied employment law BUT it does not make you an expert. If you know better than the DSS, HMRC (tax office) and an employment QC specialist then so be it. I would rather pay a few pounds and be safe. The DSS and HMRC are a bunch of useless gravy trainers! They have 12 departments to do a job one peson could do. I wouldn't take anything they say as gospol more than what anyone else says 
|
|
| http://www.silverdale-photography.co.uk/ | ||
| |
|
| Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:59 PM | |||||
 Location United Kingdom Kent Rainham | I see your profile says
I've just renewed my insurance and wanted to reduce my cover but was advised as I am trading as a Limited company that legally I have to have Employers Liability and Public liability insurance. If you don't have it then I understand that as a director you are liable for that omission. Regardless of whether you are shooting a model, a family or a wedding if you are doing so professionally then appropriate insurance cover is a must-have. |
||||
| Photography in Kent, Essex & Sussex. Visit our websites www.photo3.co.uk and new site www.models3.co.uk | |||||
| |
||||
| Sunday, November 15, 2009 4:24 PM | ||||
 Location United Kingdom London Bexleyheath | Quote from photo3 I see your profile says
I've just renewed my insurance and wanted to reduce my cover but was advised as I am trading as a Limited company that legally I have to have Employers Liability and Public liability insurance. If you don't have it then I understand that as a director you are liable for that omission. Regardless of whether you are shooting a model, a family or a wedding if you are doing so professionally then appropriate insurance cover is a must-have. Andy, I'm not sure your insurance broker/company are up to date with the law. If you don't employ anyone then the provisions of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2882/204) exempt you from Employers' Liabilty Insurance. |
|||
| |
|||
| Sunday, November 15, 2009 4:41 PM | |||
Location United Kingdom Kent Rainham | Thanks for that, I'd just Googled it and come to the same conclusion! Its all part of the package from my broker but I need to check if I can reduce cover as I have no employees - all are self employed contractors. http://www.trafalgaraccounting.co.uk/services/business_insurance/ I still think Public Liability is pretty much essential if you are trading and in a public situation. Trying to find the story on Google of a photographer covering an event who stepped back, knocked over old lady and was subsequently sued for her injuries. |
||
| Photography in Kent, Essex & Sussex. Visit our websites www.photo3.co.uk and new site www.models3.co.uk | |||
| |
||
| Sunday, November 15, 2009 5:03 PM | ||
 Location United Kingdom Surrey Esher | I would suggest that a limited company does employ people even if it is a one man band. In the test case Saloman v Saloman and Co. it was taken that a limited company is aa separate entity in it's own right, thus an employee can sue the employer and since a limited company must have either two directors or one director and a company secretary, the other party will be jointly liable. Normally HMRC work on the basis that an invoice for services makes the person employed, an invoice for services plus materials becomes self employment. Models of course are unlikely to supply materials, but that gives you some idea how the HMRC work. If we agree that a model is self employed, then logically she falls outside the position of employee or public, thus if in the course of her work, she damages the photographer's equipment (trips over light stand in studio), she is liable. If however, she is instructed to do something and is hurt whilst attempting it, my thought is that the photographer is liable, and any equipment broken (model grabs light in an attempt to prevent herself from falling) this is again the photographer's responsibility. If you ever work in/on council property I think you will find that they ask for public liability. Laurence J. Power |
|
| Laurence J. Power | ||
| |
|
| Sunday, November 15, 2009 5:44 PM | |||
 Location United Kingdom London | Just out of curiosity, how many people on here with insurance have ever had to claim against it because a model sued them for something? I honestly feel that insurance companies are the only ones that win. I've never met a photographer who's ever been sued by a model. | ||
| There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who do not. | |||
| |
||
|
|
