Mileage expenses

isplumm

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

No

Accounts departments are often closely interlinked wiith Payroll and HR,especially due to expenses etc.

Your personal details can be used for appropiate tasks which this is.

As for it being checked. Sadly it is a fact of life many people will scam and try to complement income with these sort of scams, whilst your case may well be perfectly legit its entirely reasonable they have checked it and will only pay mileage from your own home. The argument is that it is your choice to go to your BF's and why should your employer pay for you to commute between home and your BF which they have basically done here.

Hmmm .... yes I suspect you are right ... I was thinking of bank details ... although in reality accounts don't need your info ... only payroll & HR ... just because they are linked doesn't mean anything .,.. if your in payroll you have to sign all sorts of stuff .... you might not want your details disclosing to different depts .... so I still think accounts shouldn't know your address if you dn't want them to know it!!

Mark

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

The accounts department will be responsible for enforcing the policies and protecting the company.

If they use the details only for that there is no issue. I suspect if she said that to the employer they would tell her they would happily accept her resignation instead.

epsilondraconis

It seems reasonable to me that they have conducted these checks. Lets assume they allowed you to claim from your BFs house, what is to stop you saying in future that you have dumped that BF and are going out with another. The difference this time is that due to the location of the new BF, you can now claim 65 miles.

The question is where does it end.

Perhaps the people in your accounts department should seek employment in the expenses office in the Houses of Parliment. We would then all benefit from their strict, albeit fair, approach to expenses claims.

nexuss

There is a big difference between claiming 45 and 22 miles obviously.Most route planners are correct within a mile at the maximum but they are never as bad as a 23 mile difference
The employer has the right to check for fraud just as much as you are eligible to be sacked for fraud so i would tread very carefully.Always remember ignorance is never an excuse.

System

isplumm wrote: »

In terms of payments from your employer then this is presumably set out in their expenses policy so if they state you can only claim mileage from your registered home, then that is probably the case.

From my experience I would be surprised if the expense policy goes into so much detail .... I assume that on the mileage form you stated where you drove from & to.

For my company it states that the claim is from either your home address or office, WHICHEVER IS THE CLOSER.

asset2004

Thanks for your replies.
The point is the distance from the office to the place of workplace was 45 miles, actually my BF stays further away but I knew I could only claim the distance from the office to my destination. They assumed I had started at home and it is widely accepted to start all jobs at the place of work for mileage claims.

00ec25

asset2004 wrote: »

I knew I could only claim the distance from the office to my destination. They assumed I had started at home and it is widely accepted to start all jobs at the place of work for mileage claims.

my job is to ensure that finance departments enforce the company's policies becuase the policy protects the company from non compliance with legislation

what is "widely accepted" is irrelevant. You signed a contract of employment in which you are bound by your company policies and therefore you cannot choose whatever mileage suits your individual trip, you can only claim in accordance with your own company's policy

if on the other hand you can prove that you started this specific trip from your office not your home then take it up directly with your employer. Do you have anyone who saw you in the office that morning? I assume your manager has authorised the expense claim so how does he feel about "accounts" having apparently overruled him? Alternatively I frequently find authorisers are less than objective when signing expenses since they have their own little fiddles as well.

There is nothing of any further relevance which we on a public forum can say for the reasons I explained in para 1&2