Cycle to work Scheme employers asking for evidence of use

rusty656

I got a new bike through one of the tax free cycle to work schemes last year and my employer has just sent out an e mail asking for evidence that the bike has been used for commuting.

Has anybody else had this request ??

rolf_f

What do they want?! A signed affidavit from a professional to state that they have seen you use it?! Time and dated photos from speed cameras you have set off regularly on your commute? Feedback from colleagues who have seen you sweaty and smelly first thing in the morning?

Besides, you only have to do as many commute miles as you do non-commute miles. So you don't actually have to commute on the bike at all as long as you don't use it for anything else......

coopster_the_1st

rusty656 wrote:

I got a new bike through one of the tax free cycle to work schemes last year and my employer has just sent out an e mail asking for evidence that the bike has been used for commuting.

Has anybody else had this request ??

Nope not had this request although I would just walk into work in Lycra. Should be enough proof

Have you actually used it to commute to work? If so, easy to prove.

If not, if you get the train, you use it for the other end of your train journey.

If you drive, you could say you occasionally bring the bike to work in the back of the car, start driving home then cycle the rest, then cycle back to the car the following day, etc.

spaniamania

I guess road rash might help.
Perhaps that short cut and mud on the carpet is preferable?

Mithras

Got one of these too. My Sgt called me into her office and asked me out right how often I use the bike for commuting into work. Then added "That's a stupid question!"

always_tyred

rusty656 wrote:

I got a new bike through one of the tax free cycle to work schemes last year and my employer has just sent out an e mail asking for evidence that the bike has been used for commuting.

Has anybody else had this request ??

Take a picture of your bike propped up against your boss's desk, with you sitting in his chair flipping the bird. That should do it.

Headhuunter

that's ridiculous. There's no specific legal requirement for you to actually use the bike for commuting altho obviously that's what the scheme is designed for. Have you asked why they need this evidence? What happens he you can't provide it?

Specialized Needs

Headhuunter wrote:

that's ridiculous. There's no specific legal requirement for you to actually use the bike for commuting altho obviously that's what the scheme is designed for. Have you asked why they need this evidence? What happens he you can't provide it?

Really?

It might not be a specific legal requirement, but it might be a nasty shock to find that your tax has been (retrospectively) reassessed with this listed as a benefit in kind.

I can see why a company might want to cover its back (I doubt that an HMRC inspection would be pleasant), but its request seems somewhat overly paranoid. The DfT guidance does say that there is no requirement to keep a mileage log. What would be a reasonable level of assurance for the company to expect someone to provide? Might it be worth asking them what prompted this request (perhaps another company they know has been challenged by HMRC, or perhaps someone in HR has just noticed the 50+% use requirement and panicked)? Perhaps ask them what they expect as a response or what would satisfy them?

downfader

Always Tyred wrote:

rusty656 wrote:

I got a new bike through one of the tax free cycle to work schemes last year and my employer has just sent out an e mail asking for evidence that the bike has been used for commuting.

Has anybody else had this request ??

Take a picture of your bike propped up against your boss's desk, with you sitting in his chair flipping the bird. That should do it.

Or do what Jonredhornet did on youtube and ride the bike around the office with the helmet camera on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5NxrxXb4k

rusty656

They were challenged about the need for this info and have stated that there is no legal requirement and accept that some people have used the scheme and not used the bike to commute, they are just following guidelines apparently !! just waiting for a reply to see if they are going to force the issue and demand the info or leave the issue alone !!

Eau Rouge

Just send an email back saying "yes, I did use it to commute". I'd like to see anyone prove you didn't.
If you're paranoid, park your car in the next street, cycle to it, then drive to work as usual, job done.

andy83

You mean you dont log all your stats of your rides to work and get obsessed with all your miles you do lol

Think it may be your work being over paranoid tbh

Headhuunter

Specialized Needs wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

that's ridiculous. There's no specific legal requirement for you to actually use the bike for commuting altho obviously that's what the scheme is designed for. Have you asked why they need this evidence? What happens he you can't provide it?

Really?

It might not be a specific legal requirement, but it might be a nasty shock to find that your tax has been (retrospectively) reassessed with this listed as a benefit in kind.

I can see why a company might want to cover its back (I doubt that an HMRC inspection would be pleasant), but its request seems somewhat overly paranoid. The DfT guidance does say that there is no requirement to keep a mileage log. What would be a reasonable level of assurance for the company to expect someone to provide? Might it be worth asking them what prompted this request (perhaps another company they know has been challenged by HMRC, or perhaps someone in HR has just noticed the 50+% use requirement and panicked)? Perhaps ask them what they expect as a response or what would satisfy them?

On what grounds could they suddenly reasses tax when there's never been a legal requirement to prove you're using the bike for commuting?

Specialized Needs

Headhuunter wrote:

On what grounds could they suddenly reassess tax when there's never been a legal requirement to prove you're using the bike for commuting?

If we are discussing the cycle to work scheme, the scheme where the 'payments' are made before tax, then section 197AC of the 1988 Tax Act (inserted by the Finance Act 1999 and amended slightly in 2005), seems to set out the requirements for this scheme.

Section 197AC wrote:

Provision of cycle or cyclist’s safety equipment.
197AC. — (1) There is no charge to tax under section 154 (taxable benefits: general charging provision) in respect of the provision for an employee of—
(a)
a cycle, or
(b)
cyclist’s safety equipment,
without any transfer of the property in the cycle or equipment.
(2) In this section “cycle” has the meaning given by section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and “cyclist” has a corresponding meaning.
(3) The exemption conferred by subsection (1) above is subject to the condition that the benefit or facility in question must be available generally to employees of the employer concerned.
(4) The exemption is also subject to the condition that the employee must use the cycle or safety equipment mainly for qualifying journeys.
For this purpose “qualifying journey”, in relation to an employee, means a journey—
(a)
between his home and workplace, or
(b)
between one workplace and another,
in connection with the performance of the duties of the employment.
(5) If under this section there is no charge to tax under section 154 (or would be no charge if the employee were in employment to which Chapter II of Part V applies), there is no charge to tax under section 141 (non-cash vouchers) in respect of a voucher evidencing the employee’s entitlement to use the cycle or safety equipment in question.
(6) In this section—
“employment” includes an office and related expressions shall be construed accordingly; and
“workplace” means a place at which the employee’s attendance is necessary in the performance of the duties of the employment.

If we are not discussing that scheme, then my apologies, because we appear to have been talking at cross purposes.

Mithras

rusty656 wrote:

They were challenged about the need for this info and have stated that there is no legal requirement and accept that some people have used the scheme and not used the bike to commute, they are just following guidelines apparently !! just waiting for a reply to see if they are going to force the issue and demand the info or leave the issue alone !!

As Mentioned previously, if it isn't used mainly for commuting or for work related purposes then it is seen as a benefit in kind. leaving the employer and/or the employee liable.
This is the reason our employer went nuts about us using our job bikes for commuting in and out of work...They believed it would of cost them 10's of thousands of pounds if employees were aloud to use their job bikes for personal use!

Stevo_666

I wonder if your employer is just covering their ar$e in case the Inland Revenue ask? Yep, it's in the law but my understanding was that it was a very relaxed arrangement to try to get as many people as possible onto bikes.

As for evidence, photos of the bike locked up at/near work should do - after all why else would it be there?

shouldbeinbed

I thought each scheme had its own local requirements set by the employer that we sign up to as part of the hire purchase agreement.

I'm contractually obliged to use my bike for at least 50% of my commuting journeys whilst paying for it. No ones asked me about it though - this may be because I keep fighting the H&S gnome and Admin staff for better facilities.

OP If you're concerned, you might like to have a look in the HP contract you signed, it may be in there and they're just doing what they said they would.

Zombie_donkey

This is probably why my employer has suspended cycle to work.

They said it was due to clarification of HMRC guidlines.

gaz545

I've never been asked, but funnily enough the woman in HR that runs it, walks past my desk everyday in the morning when i'm sat in my lycra.

rolf_f

shouldbeinbed wrote:

I thought each scheme had its own local requirements set by the employer that we sign up to as part of the hire purchase agreement.

I'm contractually obliged to use my bike for at least 50% of my commuting journeys whilst paying for it. No ones asked me about it though - this may be because I keep fighting the H&S gnome and Admin staff for better facilities.

OP If you're concerned, you might like to have a look in the HP contract you signed, it may be in there and they're just doing what they said they would.

Seems odd - looks like your employer has misinterpreted the rules. There is nothing in the scheme itself that requires you to use your bike for at least 50% of your commuting journeys - all it does say is that the bike should mainly be used for commuting (see quote in Specialized Needs post); that means that at least 50% of the bikes mileage should be used for the commute. So, if you use it once for a 10 mile commute and once for a 9 mile day out, that is fine. On the other hand, if you cycle to work 150 days (ie more than half the year) doing a round trip of one mile because you live near work, and then use the bike for a Lands End to John o Groats trip, you'll be contravening the rules!

El Capitano

rusty656 wrote:

Has anybody else had this request ??

Yes. But as I cycle to work more than I drive, it's not too much of an issue.

Now, what they haven't done, is check which bike I ride to work on...

The Cycle Scheme was set up at my work about 6 months after I'd replaced my regular commuter bike (cracked the frame) with a Focus Mares CX bike. I was a bit gutted about this, as I'm probably the only person in the office who cycles to work the whole year round. So, as a bit of a joke/protest/moment of madness I decided to apply for a TT bike through the scheme, thinking that it would get declined once someone saw what sort of bike it was. It didn't get declined and I will be (in two months time once the payments have finished) the proud owner of a Ribble TT bike.

And, I do ride it work. Occasionally...

bluefoam

I'm not sure what kind of evidence they could be looking for - who the hell takes photos of themselves locking their bike on a regular basis. Maybe they are just looking for a statement from the staff member.

The Irish Bike to Work scheme requires the end user to sign a declaration that they will use the bike for x amount of commuting...

alfablue

You are only required to use it for riding to work for 50% or more of the bike's use, so if you never rode it to work that would be okay (assuming it wasn't used for anything else); or alternatively, ride it to work once, that would suffice.

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Seems odd - looks like your employer has misinterpreted the rules. There is nothing in the scheme itself that requires you to use your bike for at least 50% of your commuting journeys - all it does say is that the bike should mainly be used for commuting (see quote in Specialized Needs post); that means that at least 50% of the bikes mileage should be used for the commute. So, if you use it once for a 10 mile commute and once for a 9 mile day out, that is fine. On the other hand, if you cycle to work 150 days (ie more than half the year) doing a round trip of one mile because you live near work, and then use the bike for a Lands End to John o Groats trip, you'll be contravening the rules!

Whoever dreamt up these rules didn't put a lot of thought into how this would be verified. Until the government start mandating the fitting of black boxes/stellite trackers to all new bikes (don't laugh, if 'New Labia' have another long stint in Government, this could be possible), how on earth would anyone prove you'd been using it for too much non-commuting time?

alfablue

I don't think anyone put much thought into verification, because I don't think anyone imagined it would be necessary or worthwhile doing so! It is just the meek, the freaked, the bureaucrats and the envious that want to verify anything. Most places, everything is hunky dory in cycle to work land. 8)

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Whoever dreamt up these rules didn't put a lot of thought into how this would be verified. Until the government start mandating the fitting of black boxes/stellite trackers to all new bikes (don't laugh, if 'New Labia' have another long stint in Government, this could be possible), how on earth would anyone prove you'd been using it for too much non-commuting time?

The point is that those who made up the rules probably don't mind much at all. There are several sillinesses with the rules behind C2W but in reality they are there to make things technically legal. You could probably sort things out but it would probably require law changes and lots of parliamentary debate for something which, ultimately, is simply meant to get more people cycling.

Don't forget, it was New Labour that made this happen and it works pretty well; I've not heard anyone say that they did get forced to commute to work on their bike and neither that they got forced to pay anywhere near the realistic resale value at the end of the hire period.

TheStone

Go up to them, roll up your trousers and tell them to 'Feel the shin"


Seriously though, does seem an odd request.

Stevo_666

Rolf, I mentioned in my post on the last page that this was orginally designed as something that was to be lightly enforced in order to get more people onto bikes, so we are not disagreeing over that.

Fair enough, the current Govt did introduce it (although their multitude of other tax rises still leave me considerably worse off); the point I was making was that with their love of control, survellance, interference and legislation, it would not be beyond some future administration to want to do that sort of thing.

scrumpydave

Let's be reasonable here. The scheme is designed to get people cycling into work instead of driving with the added advantage that enthusiasts like us get to upgrade our fleet on the cheap. If you do ride the bike to work It's easy to prove. My company made it clear that half the journeys on the bike had to be to or from work, not half the distance travelled. With a system like that I've got no complaints. The only people I have encountered who have problems with the scheme are people that have tried to abuse it.

rf6

scrumpydave wrote:

Let's be reasonable here. The scheme is designed to get people cycling into work instead of driving with the added advantage that enthusiasts like us get to upgrade our fleet on the cheap. If you do ride the bike to work It's easy to prove. My company made it clear that half the journeys on the bike had to be to or from work, not half the distance travelled. With a system like that I've got no complaints. The only people I have encountered who have problems with the scheme are people that have tried to abuse it.

+1. It's a great scheme. I work in a team of 8. 2 of us regularly commuted by bike before the scheme. Two more have started with scheme bikes and use them to get in, apart from when on nights. I don't see the problem in making sure they are used - if the politicians can't say people are cycling to work because of it, they'd want to get rid. Oh, and I've had a couple of bikes I would never have been able to buy because of it, so I'll answer the question if asked.

beverick

rusty656 wrote:

I got a new bike through one of the tax free cycle to work schemes last year and my employer has just sent out an e mail asking for evidence that the bike has been used for commuting.

Has anybody else had this request ??

Do you know why they're asking for it? It's reasonable for the operators of the scheme to try to assess how successful the scheme has been?

I'd expect them to collect information such as number of journeys made, whether the bile was used for other journeys and, indeed, if the bike was still in use.

Bob