mileage allowance

ali-t

Anihilator wrote: »

Lets be honest now the 40p per mile is a very high rate and very few actually incur 40p a mile travelling.

Public transport and hire cars are normally always cheaper unless its a journey under 100 miles also.

Tbh I think your employers have cottoned onto the fact you and your colleagues are subsidising your earnings with the travel expenses! they key word being expenses.

But the employer will lose out the most if people take public transport or walk between appointments. I don't know what line of work the OP is in but if, for example she earns £12ph (as that is an easy sum to work with) and can get somewhere in her car in 5 minutes she only has 5 minutes idle time that the employer is paying for.

The employer may be paying £2 in petrol costs (at 40ppm) for the 5 mile journey by car but if the OP took the bus (which never ever goes the direct route) they would be paying (£1 for arguments sake) for the bus fare and 1 hour on the bus, therefore costing the employer £11 for that hour. This is in direct contrast to £3 for a £2 petrol payment and 5 minutes travelling time.

What I am getting at is that for productivity and outcomes the employer is better off paying for petrol or buying lease cars or pool cars for staff.

Anihilator

ali-t wrote: »

But the employer will lose out the most if people take public transport or walk between appointments. I don't know what line of work the OP is in but if, for example she earns £12ph (as that is an easy sum to work with) and can get somewhere in her car in 5 minutes she only has 5 minutes idle time that the employer is paying for.

The employer may be paying £2 in petrol costs (at 40ppm) for the 5 mile journey by car but if the OP took the bus (which never ever goes the direct route) they would be paying (£1 for arguments sake) for the bus fare and 1 hour on the bus, therefore costing the employer £11 for that hour. This is in direct contrast to £3 for a £2 petrol payment and 5 minutes travelling time.

What I am getting at is that for productivity and outcomes the employer is better off paying for petrol or buying lease cars or pool cars for staff.

But what if its a 10 mile journey through very busy traffic including parking at one end and a congestion/road toll. Alternatively a local 10 minutely bus service costs a £1 and goes up a bus lane so avoids the traffic :rolleyes:

DVardysShadow

ali-t wrote: »

But the employer will lose out the most if people take public transport or walk between appointments. I don't know what line of work the OP is in but if, for example she earns £12ph (as that is an easy sum to work with) and can get somewhere in her car in 5 minutes she only has 5 minutes idle time that the employer is paying for.

The employer may be paying £2 in petrol costs (at 40ppm) for the 5 mile journey by car but if the OP took the bus (which never ever goes the direct route) they would be paying (£1 for arguments sake) for the bus fare and 1 hour on the bus, therefore costing the employer £11 for that hour. This is in direct contrast to £3 for a £2 petrol payment and 5 minutes travelling time.

What I am getting at is that for productivity and outcomes the employer is better off paying for petrol or buying lease cars or pool cars for staff.

That is a good point. It could be penny wise and pond foolish. I did suggest OP stopped using car and I think that this is exactly what staff should do - OP could give car to OH, or put it up for sale [and show ad to employer :cool:] and just travel sustainably.

DVardysShadow

Anihilator wrote: »

But what if its a 10 mile journey through very busy traffic including parking at one end and a congestion/road toll. Alternatively a local 10 minutely bus service costs a £1 and goes up a bus lane so avoids the traffic :rolleyes:

Well, yes. This is a possible benefit to the employer of having no one use their car. This is actually an excellent argument to use to go fully on board with the employer's line of argument and henceforth travel sustainably as the employer requires.

In the OP's shoes, I would not use the car on their business and let the employer find out whether their gamble was paying off. And I would not shield them from the consequences of getting it wrong - eg unable to make appointments.

robredz

Anihilator wrote: »

But what if its a 10 mile journey through very busy traffic including parking at one end and a congestion/road toll. Alternatively a local 10 minutely bus service costs a £1 and goes up a bus lane so avoids the traffic :rolleyes:

What if the employee is disabled and has to use a car? as the bus is not an option, what if the first appointment is early doors, and public transport would make them at least an hour late ( big possibility in rural areas)?

Anihilator

robredz wrote: »

What if the employee is disabled and has to use a car? as the bus is not an option, what if the first appointment is early doors, and public transport would make them at least an hour late ( big possibility in rural areas)?

These are obviously consequences yes. Dvardyshaw has it spot on. Refuse to use the car and let the employer deal with this.

As someone who deals with expenses and did a lot of research on it recently I can assure you however paying staff mileage was often the most expensive way.

The simple answer is in some cases mileage is cheaper, others it isnt. You will find that often its cheaper to hire staff a car for example if its a long trip. Other times a taxi account can be cheaper, not to mention public transport. The problem is with mileage is that if you pay the maximum it can be a right little money spinner for the staff who tangibly still pay for their car etc anyway and costly for the employer. For example we often found we were paying £49 for staff to travel to another office (£40 mileage, £9 parking) when a train ticket was half the price (or more off peak) and that the train was also quicker.

Obviously staff level is relevant too. Its a lot easier to insist a entry level administrator travelling to do some training etc uses a train than a senior director whose calender is full for a day.

Anyway thaat is going off tangent. The OP unless it states needs a car can refuse to use her car and insist on suitable alternatives i.e public transport, hire cars etc.

OP - read up on the companies travel and subsistence policy.

I am sympathetic to both sides though as I think in a lot of companies that pay 40p it is abused by staff to subsidise their wages when there are far cheaper options to the company.

OP can I ask what your job is, what sort of travelling is involved etc? All relevant.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Anihilator wrote: »

The employees would be insuring their cars and having wear and tear anyway.

I don't actually think for occasional use 12p is that unfair and it will cover fuel in most cars.

What a load of sh*te.......

Insurance for business is an additional cost on insurance & wear & tear is related to additional miles driven.

Anihilator

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

What a load of sh*te.......

Insurance for business is an additional cost on insurance & wear & tear is related to additional miles driven.

A minimal cost that a lot of people have on their premiums anyway.

Wear and tear is related to miles driven yes but if your doing a couple of hundred miles a year its not likely to make a difference.

Are you trying to suggest that most people don't just pocket the 40p as additional income

DVardysShadow

A more comprehensive, reasoned and less dismissive argument this time, which is good

Anihilator wrote: »

These are obviously consequences yes. Dvardyshaw has it spot on. Refuse to use the car and let the employer deal with this.

As someone who deals with expenses and did a lot of research on it recently I can assure you however paying staff mileage was often the most expensive way.

The simple answer is in some cases mileage is cheaper, others it isnt. You will find that often its cheaper to hire staff a car for example if its a long trip. Other times a taxi account can be cheaper, not to mention public transport. The problem is with mileage is that if you pay the maximum it can be a right little money spinner for the staff who tangibly still pay for their car etc anyway and costly for the employer. For example we often found we were paying £49 for staff to travel to another office (£40 mileage, £9 parking) when a train ticket was half the price (or more off peak) and that the train was also quicker.

A very good point. Management would be right to look at these issues. But the right way of handling this is to make sure that the employee uses the most cost effective means of transport. BUT, if the employer takes the mick and reduces mileage to 12p such that the employee is forking out, then quite rightly, the employee will resort to economic behaviour and not use their own car. So the journeys which are more cost effective by car will be done by train.

bristol_pilot

Anihilator wrote: »

A minimal cost that a lot of people have on their premiums anyway.

Not necessarily, my insurance is £380, of which £90 is to have personal buiness cover and I do less than 100 miles a year on business.