Cycle to work scheme dishonesty

[CAS]

There's no requirement in my empoyers scheme to actually ride the bike to work for any set number of occasions. I do ride a bike to work about 90% of the time but it's not the one I bought through the scheme.

I don't feel bad about that because I am a regular cyclist and if you think about it the health benefits probably potentially save the NHS money in the longer term - and even if not on the BTW bike I'm not contributing to pollution and traffic congestion in the city centre and leaving the sought after car parking spaces near the office for other colleagues all of which are supposeed to be benefits of the scheme in our county travel plan.

There may also be reasons why people have a bike bought this wayu and not continue riding it to work. My husband had a bike through the scheme and tried the system I use- putting the bike inside the car and then parking and commuting on it from outside the city centre. Unfortunately a resident in the street where he parked his car to do this complained to the council ( our employer) about this practice and it caused so much hassle he stopped. - no proper park and rides in Hereford! However he still takes the bike on holidays weekends away etc.

I think it sad that people buy the bikes and sell on - that does seem an abuse of the system to me - just hope that the paperwork involved in getting the bike puts most off doing it for potential gain!

 

[Tallpaul]

I think the rules of the scheme only say you have to ride to work on a regular basis , not everyday by all weather .

There's no requirement in my empoyers scheme to actually ride the bike to work for any set number of occasions. I do ride a bike to work about 90% of the time but it's not the one I bought through the scheme.

Taken straight from the HMRC guidance:

The tax exemption only applies when an employee mainly uses the cycle and cyclists’ safety equipment for qualifying journeys. A qualifying journey for an employee means a journey, or part of a journey,

●● between his or her home and workplace, or
●● between one workplace and another,

in connection with the performance of their duties of employment. So, for example, cycling to and from the station to get to work would qualify. In this case, ‘mainly’ means that more than 50% of use of the cycle and safety equipment must involve a qualifying journey.

 

[Easy_Rider]

As I've hinted above, there is a difference between claiming with the intention of cycling to work on it, and claiming just for another bike or selling it. As it's public money I do think you must make the choice based on your own morals. Personally I wouldn't claim unless I was able to use it for work regularly.

 

[brocklanders023]

I can't see the problem as long as it gets more people out on their bikes. Don't agree with people buying them to sell on though.

Loads of people where I work have used the scheme, most of which would not have got a bike without it. If they now use the bike at any time that's got to be a good thing, right?

 

[Tallpaul]

As I've hinted above, there is a difference between claiming with the intention of cycling to work on it, and claiming just for another bike or selling it. As it's public money I do think you must make the choice based on your own morals. Personally I wouldn't claim unless I was able to use it for work regularly.

Objectively speaking, what's worse?

Colleague A buys a bike, cycles to work once after she got it. Realised she much prefers her car and never uses it again. 100% of use was for commuting.

Colleague B doesn't own a car, has a couple of nice bikes and sees the scheme as an opportunity to buy something he'd had his eye on. He continues to commute daily on his old bike but now rides his shiny new steed every weekend.

 

[The Ken]

My personal view is that items like bikes should not be taxed if we want to push a more sustainable transport system, if it is used once to replace a car journey it has made a difference, whether it is to work or even just for fun. ...this should be especially the case with kids bikes (perhaps with a minimum quality qualifier ).

However, my wife's work has a CTW scheme and my work doesn't have a scheme. I have been tempted to order a bike I would use through her work, but she is much smaller than me - so the size difference means she would never be able to ride it, which I feel is wrong.

....so I continue wait patiently until my company gets the finger out.

 

[Easy_Rider]

I can't see the problem as long as it gets more people out on their bikes. Don't agree with people buying them to sell on though.

Loads of people where I work have used the scheme, most of which would not have got a bike without it. If they now use the bike at any time that's got to be a good thing, right?

Well, whether it's right or not is subjective. According to HMRC it's not right and not the reason it was set up. It wasn't a get people cycling scheme but get people cycling to work scheme, with the aim of reducing congestion. The closest analogy I can think of is falsely claiming benefits but using the money to good use, i'm not accusing anyone of fraud but that's the only analogy I can think of. I'm sure those Polish workers I read about claiming benefits for their kids that weren't even living in the UK put the money to good use, clothes/food etc, but is it right? Don't wish to offend anyone with that analogy, just debating.

 

[tintin40]

Sorry couldn't help. So this a 'mass' debate now


i agree with E_R

Don't use the scheme unless it's for work.

 

[Tallpaul]

Well, whether it's right or not is subjective. According to HMRC it's not right and not the reason it was set up. It wasn't a get people cycling scheme but get people cycling to work scheme, with the aim of reducing congestion.

The scheme also states that no employee can be excluded from participating...

The Government also used to run a scheme for improving employee computer skills. My company is, on the whole, staffed by people with very high IT skills but everyone bought a shiny new home computer anyway.

Personally I see the de facto purpose of these schemes as far more broad than the definitions the government applies. The rules are there to comply with legislation which permits them, but the shceme is a benefit.

 

[mikee]

i think you only need to use it for part of a journey ,i.e. to the railway station and so on

theres a bloke here who bought a bike for his wife and a roofrack with
his vouchers

needless to say its now stopped here :evil: