[Closed] Cycle to work and home workers

Overthinking it, no one has any interest in enforcing such a silly rule anyway.

Get on it.

Will probably depend on who signs it off in your HR dept.

I wouldn’t ask the question though...

My C2W was through the HMRC staff scheme, no one has ever asked me to confirm at least half my mileage was commuting.

Mrs_oab had the email this week to say she owned her C2W Trek Superlight. A bike she's ridden to work about 3x on and sold last year to buy the FS.

🙈😁

Wouldn’t worry, on my fourth bike, including a MTB and CX and I’ve only ridden one to work (at present). Just applied for another voucher to upgrade that bike.

Haven't done it myself as a homeworker... doesn't exactly seem in spirit of the scheme although im sure that may well categorise me as a mug to some folk. Im also not interested in potentially getting into bother with my employer regardless how small the risk

Where's druid to tell us this is fraud?

The spirit of the scheme is to get people to use bikes when they'd normally use a car. The short sightedness of the government is that this is commuting, hence they name. It's just badly named. No legal requirement or ability to record mileage, so crack on.

Yup. All okay, I’ve been a contracted home worker for 19yrs. Had three C2W bikes in that time.
Go for it and enjoy.

doesn’t exactly seem in spirit of the scheme although im sure that may well categorise me as a mug to some folk.

Makes me think you have a sensible approach to life 👍

Officially, the requirement is the bike is primarily used for work-related journeys, not specifically commuting. So working from home doesn't automatically exclude you from complying with the letter of the rules.

It's also the case that employers are explicitly not required to perform any checks or keep any records of how the bike is used.

Just don't try and take your work related waste to the recycling centre on your bike!

An over zealous manager tried to have a go at me once for authorisating a staff members c2w scheme as she had never cycled to work and accused her of fraud. At the time the dwp, the largest employer didn't have a c2w scheme, just an interest free loan repaid in installments, so no tax or ni saving. I pointed this out and asked her if she knew any c2w police in HR? She didn't get back to me although I know she made enquiries.

Hmrc have too much work on with furlough fraud and eat out to help out fictitious meals to be interested in a c2w scheme. If your working from home then every ride is a c2w.

Its the hitlers in HR you need to sweet talk. Biscuits or chocolate usually work well.

On a side note our local council have offered the use of an ebike for work related duties, both to c2w and visits etc. I'm guessing it's some government funding

No need to worry about it. I use the c2w scheme although I commute in a car. My boss doesn't give a toss

I spoke to one of the scheme providers who said it really isn’t an issue. However our useless HR department have told me I won’t be eligible as a home based worker. So all down to your company at the end of the day.

Your HR folk are just being Arsey tbh, no other reason for it, it's a government initiative to get people cycling, aye if it gets cars off the road at commuter time then great, but all cycling is good.

I'd pursue that tbh, there's no need for that kind of obstacle.

Your HR folk are just being Arsey tbh, no other reason for it, it’s a government initiative to get people cycling, aye if it gets cars off the road at commuter time then great, but all cycling is good.

That is how you and millions perceive it yes, and how in reality it is normally administered. But it's not that at all.

It is a shit system that benefits parts of the population more that others and is frequently just used as a method to subsidise middle aged mens' toys.

If all cycling is good (I'm assuming by that you mean the exercise element) - then why not kayaks for dicking about on at the weekend too if dicking about is what your average bike to work bike is bought for? Both are exercise and both are good.

If all cycling is good - then why would you not have a scheme to encourage retired types to cycle too?

A scheme that discounts the toys of the wealthy more that the poor.

A scheme that you can't access if you are on minimum wage and, you know, need a bike to get to work.

It really is a shit shit concept that I really hope comes to an end soon. Take the same amount of money it must cost and reduce the VAT on bikes if it really is about 'all cycling is good'. Or put it into better roads infrastructure. Or make it available as grants to companies to improve their bike storage and changing facilities.

I say all this as someone who as a higher rate tax payer for a firm that takes part could profit from it more than most. A colleague in the catering team who current walks 4 miles to work as he has no bike and can't afford a car can't as his income would be illegally low if he did.

But whatever - crack on with it - definitely the best way to spend government resources currently.

...and generally our employer see the C2W scheme as a support to overall well-being. Enabling their staff to exercise and be fitter. It ain’t fraud.

I'd agree with all of that convert, however I was addressing the point made about it only being for commuting, as I'm sure you're aware.

I wouldn't worry about it. Echoing above it may not be strictly in the "spirit" of scheme but in the last two years I've just bought bits and pieces through it. Highlights have been a Troy Lee D3 Carbon fullface and a waterproof duffle bag. The only bike i bought was for my daughter.....

With regards to commuting, its a benefit offered to you so you are entitled to it. You work place just happens to be at home..

We have over 600 people on site and a bike shed with 12 spaces....I know of more than 12 people who utilise the scheme....

However our useless HR department have told me I won’t be eligible as a home based worker. So all down to your company at the end of the day.

I dont think they're allowed to do that, the hmrc guidance states that it must be available to all employees, and that they cant exclude certain groups.

See the pdf below, section 4.6, bullet point 3

so if its available for one employee its got to be available for them all.

The specific law in relation to the cycle to work scheme is very limited (see ITEPA 2003 S.244). There are three conditions, one of which is that the bicycle or safety equipment is mainly used for qualifying journeys - which are defined elsewhere as journeys between home and work and between work places. Therefore if you work at home it is highly unlikely a bike will qualify under the scheme as you are likely to be using it mainly for non qualifying journeys. If the benefit is claimed for a non compliant bike then an incorrect P11D return has been made. This is primarily a problem for the employer, but it might not stop there.

The fact that people have got away with it, or that scheme providers say its fine, is irrelevant. Tax is done on a self assessment basis so you are only out of the woods when either investigated or the time limit elapses. Whilst obviously involving much larger amounts, there are plenty of people who were told that the EBT schemes were kosher as there had been no assessments and intermediaries were saying they were fine. They are in danger of losing their houses now.

Glad someone asked this.
I’ve taken advantage of the CTW scheme in past years. While there’s no need to prove the ‘mostly’ work-journeys use it would have been difficult to disprove when I worked 12 miles away from home.

The requirement that the bike be “mostly used for commuting or business travel” seems tricky to fulfil now that I’m home-based.

That is, unless my daily commute from home to home via the local parks and river banks counts.

“mostly” is a bit ambiguous: miles or journeys?

however, it seems a handy way to try a new bike, speed up my morning and evening circular commutes, and get essential supplies for business activities: biscuits, tea, etc. And potentially meet up for local (socially-distanced) meetings and events. Also, there’s the all-important salary sacrifice that helps reduce tax liability.

I’ll be looking into it again.

@convert it is indeed a scheme that gives more to those that already have. And even more to those that have even more. That said, it is a good thing. Just not good enough.

What would be better would be to make bicycles VAT-exempt. Better, eliminate the insidious financial blight that is VAT altogether. A regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest.

I wouldn’t worry about it. Echoing above it may not be strictly in the “spirit” of scheme but in the last two years I’ve just bought bits and pieces through it. Highlights have been a Troy Lee D3 Carbon fullface and a waterproof duffle bag. The only bike i bought was for my daughter…..

🙄

Your HR folk are just being Arsey tbh, no other reason for it, it’s a government initiative to get people cycling, aye if it gets cars off the road at commuter time then great, but all cycling is good.

I’d pursue that tbh, there’s no need for that kind of obstacle.

I have gone back a couple of times, making those points, but unfortunately I work for a large US corporation with very weak, incompetent risk averse management that live in fear of the tyrants running the show in the US. None of them want to go out on a limb and potentially fall foul of HMRC even if this is very unlikely so it’s not going to happen under the current rules. I did intend to write to my MP to ask the guidance is broadened given the governments current interest in cycling and the increase in home workers due to COVID but I’m not hopeful.

To the point about the scheme benefitting better off 40% tax payers buying expensive bikes then that’s certainly true, but at the end of the day everyone saves money and the more people encouraged onto bikes is definitely a good thing.

Edit:Julians point about the scheme has to be available to all employees is an interesting one. I guess it means any company that has home workers can’t really offer the scheme to anyone?

Let's just say that when I last looked at the scheme, a couple of bike shops were happy to discuss things like letting me top up over the scheme limit and offering bikes at sale price to bring them under the limit.

When I mentioned the employer was HMRC, those offers got withdrawn.

The scheme was set up for a purpose. Up to you and your employer's if you want to twist the purpose to suit your circumstances. Like lockdown rules but less risky for the health of others. If they didn't want to create loopholes they should have had stricter rules.

i've had two now, ashamed to say i've never ridden to work, although i ride it on my lunch break..
i spoke to tredz the other day, they allow vouchers against Jump Bikes :0)

To the point about the scheme benefitting better off 40% tax payers buying expensive bikes then that’s certainly true, but at the end of the day everyone saves money and the more people encouraged onto bikes is definitely a good thing.

The 'everyone' part of the statement is simply not true. If you are a low wage earner who would earn less than minimum wage once the salary sacrifice is taken you are not allowed to apply. Similarly if on a zero hour and limited contract it really can't be accessed. If this is about health rather than environmental reasons and changing commuting habits the low paid are also statistically the ones we need to improve the health of most anyway so it still makes no sense. Now the limit has been taken away you will have 40%+ tax payers saving literally thousands of a fs ebike to use on a handful of weekends. Would they have not gone riding if they had not saved £3000 off the ticket price or would they have just paid up anyway or bought less of a 'weapon'. It just seems such a crap way to spend a finite supply of government funds, especially given the broader circumstances.

Any forward thinking HR person should also recognise the health and well-being benefits of cycling for a home worker. You may not commute from point A to point B to get to work, but a ride from your home is beneficial to your work.

The ‘everyone’ part of the statement is simply not true.

Yeah, you are right, I didn’t consider that. Maybe VAT free would be a better simpler way of encouraging more cycling.

Haha why everyone overthink everything.

Just fill in the form and ask apply. If your co has bothered to sign up to the scheme there will be someone that just stamps approve when applications come in as long as you are an active employee on payroll.

You work at the 1 co that has a busy body who this is there only job? Tell them your garden is 300ft long and you have a shed at the end where you ride to work.

The scheme is to help drive the economy, make people spend their pay checks, help bike shops, improve health and the environment. You are doing all these whatever you do with your bike. Stop overthinking.

finite supply of government funds

not really a thing @convert. Money is just made up by governments. Arbitrary rules are in place to set spending limits and so forth to maintain trust and credibility (😂). It was one of the terrible problems with ‘austerity’: the idea of ‘balancing the books’. It sounds sensible, after all if we ran a deficit all the time we’d have increasing debt and big problems. It’s different when you are a government. Cf the recent measures to shore up people and businesses in this pandemic. The money doesn’t have to come from somewhere. It’s just made up and the ‘debt’ placed in the future.

for a fair exploration of some of this see ‘talking to my daughter. A brief history of capitalism’ or have a listen to ‘50 things that made the modern economy’

Theoretical bollox of the smelliest order there I'm afraid.

By that logic you would advocate every taxpayer takes all their earnings once destined to the taxman (or rather, our collective needs) and spent it on fancy bikes, coke and hookers? And the government just printed some more to cover what they would have got in?

You know what I was driving at - you know it and I know that you know it. 40% tax payers diverting the tax destined for the greater good into a shiny toys with wheels can't be defended.

Do bike shops and the environment care if the person pays 20, 40 or 50% tax?

People that really abuse the tax system are not under PAYE and def don’t use cycle to work scheme.

Much worse than tax games for the economy is people not spending. If people don’t spend the gov doesn’t get the VAT that even cash money gangsta’s contribute when they buy and people in shops lose jobs (then go onto to claiming benefit).

The people that think they are cheating use the scheme to spend more than they otherwise would have feeding right back into the tax system. Abuse is built into models to meet the core goals of the scheme.

As long as these crazy rich cycle scheme abuser folk on gravel bikes stay away from my local downhill trails I’m cool 😂😂

Edit:Julians point about the scheme has to be available to all employees is an interesting one. I guess it means any company that has home workers can’t really offer the scheme to anyone?

No. An employer can reasonably offer it to all employees, but point out that the bike must be used primarily for work purposes, and can refuse to put it through the salary sacrifice scheme if they don't believe that the terms of the scheme will be adhered to.

The tax break requires that the bike is used primarily for work purposes, not just commuting. So if you visit clients and primarily use the bike to get to them, or to a railway station in order to visit them, that's OK, so being a home worker doesn't automatically exclude you from qualifying.

But whatever – crack on with it

I will thanks.

The responses on this made me laugh, how people are either worrying about an unenforceable rule or that they're angry about a scheme with good intentions but apparently not targeting how they want it to be targeting.

There's bigger fish to fry, that's why successive governments have hardly touched it.

The tax break requires that the bike is used primarily for work purposes, not just commuting. So if you visit clients and primarily use the bike to get to them, or to a railway station in order to visit them, that’s OK, so being a home worker doesn’t automatically exclude you from qualifying.

yep - and it only requires that more than 50% of journeys (not not mileage, but journeys) are for work purposes. So you could quite rightly buy a bike on the scheme and use it once to go to work and that would qualify as long as you didnt use it for anything else none work related - it doesnt have to be used regularly, or for a certain percentage of your work trips etc.

it is indeed a scheme that gives more to those that already have. And even more to those that have even more.

Or it could be seen as a scheme to give a bit back to those who pay the majority into the system?

Or it could be seen as a scheme to give a bit back to those who pay the majority into the system?

That's as blue blooded a tory comment as I think I've seen on here. Whilst we're at it how about all male managers getting a knee trembler from the youngest female pa on a Friday afternoon? Because, well, they are the ones that help the company prosper more than most. They basically deserve it.

Any forward thinking HR person should also recognise the health and well-being benefits of cycling for a home worker.

Whether they think it is good doesnt make it within the rules.
The requirement about using it to go to work does seem to be one which could be problematic for homeworkers if HMRC ever decided to get arsy about things.
Then again I suspect just checking the number of bike spaces/shower facilities vs take up on most sites would give the hint it wasnt really working as per the claimed aim as opposed to the real one.

Although its far less useful scheme now that HMRC got pissed off with companies taking the micky a bit too much with the end of scheme prices.

The requirement about using it to go to work does seem to be one which could be problematic for homeworkers if HMRC ever decided to get arsy about things.

There isnt a requirement to use it to go to work, there is a requirement to use it for 'qualifying journeys' for more than 50 % of the journeys the bike makes.

There are lots of exmaples of a qualifying journey, one is cycling to work, but another could be cycling to the post box to post a work letter for example, or cycling to the post office to post a parcel/buy some stamps/pick up some stationery

but another could be cycling to the post box to post a work letter for example.

You might need some better examples. They invented that pesky interweb thingy and 'emails' - trips to the post box for the average PAYE home worker are a little on the wane.

Or it could be seen as a scheme to give a bit back to those who pay the majority into the system?

it is true that higher rate tax payers pay the most into the system. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/income-tax-liabilities-by-income-range--2

I don’t see it as giving back. Just more of the same potential for reduced tax liability/tax avoidance for those aware of the benefits. I’d rather see VAT eliminated and everyone saving 20% than the 20% and 40% tax bracket and NI savings.

think of those unfortunate folks who move into one of the highest tax rates in Europe. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/tax-rates/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/03/tax-trap-budget-children

You might need some better examples. They invented that pesky interweb thingy and ’emails’ – trips to the post box for the average PAYE home worker are a little on the wane.

You get the point though.... Its not limited to cycling to work despite being referred to as a cycle to work scheme, green commute etc etc.

Take the same amount of money it must cost and reduce the VAT on bikes

This. The whole scheme favours the "haves" more than the "have nots"

Convert is your work colleague who walks to work under 5'4"? if so I can send them a bike the week after next. PM me if you want this.

Generally agree with the rationale of the points you started.

@morecashthandash topping up is perfectly fine, always has been. You get the agreed amount and pay everything over that when you purchase the bike.

HMRC specifically wouldn't let us, and shops withdrew the offer when they knew which scheme I was under 🤷‍♂️

I'm with Convert on this

The amount of folks using the scheme to get discount on 2nd bikes, downhill bikes etc and - in at least one case - selling them on before they legally own them, us quite astonishing.

I'd also guess that most of those folks were quite indignant, during the MP's expenses scandal.

Convert is your work colleague who walks to work under 5’4″? if so I can send them a bike the week after next. PM me if you want this.

Thanks for your incredibly kind offer. Unfortunately his nickname of 'Lurch' gives you an idea of height! I've actually moved jobs recently but your post has reminded me to do more than moan and I too could rustle him something up from my spare bin and a few donations. More anon.

I don’t see it as giving back. Just more of the same potential for reduced tax liability/tax avoidance for those aware of the benefits. I’d rather see VAT eliminated and everyone saving 20% than the 20% and 40% tax bracket and NI savings.

Perhaps giving back was poorly worded on my part. Earnings are complex with non PAYE, benefits etc. Cycle to work cant fix that but gives a simple system for PAYE employees to save the percentage they put in on a bike that will hopefully encourage a healthier lifestyle and/or less congestion on the roads. If the system was any more complex, people would complain about that.

I have no issue in reducing or removing VAT on bikes as another way of doing it but there will be somebody who says that isn't fair as low earners cant afford expensive bikes so it doesn't matter what the VAT is...