Payment rates for travel claims

Teahfc

Wryly wrote: »

nannytone:


"so you think there should be additional 'perks' to claiming benefit?"
No, I was saying that maybe staff rates are set too high.

Then if you are wanting to discuss this then maybe the discussion thread is for you as its not a benefit question

Credit-Crunched

Wryly wrote: »

nannytone:

"so you think there should be additional 'perks' to claiming benefit?"
No, I was saying that maybe staff rates are set too high.

"at 20p a mile, and assuming 35 mpg that works out at £7 a gallon for fuel. sp ypur fuel costs are totally covered.
you could always use public transport and receive the full cost of your journey."

A 25 mile journey @ 20p is £5. Public transport for the same journey (when & if it runs!) is £ 5.80:).

However the point is that there is a discrepency between the two rates.
Caz3121 does not explain why it is, he simply states how HMRC treats such payments to staff.

Do I detect a little 'benefit scroungers' attitude here:question:

The question was not whether anyone deserves these payments or not , it was why the discrepancy.

I may provide a reasoning as to why the rates differ..

Your payment is just that, a payment to you. You are not employed by the DWP, you do not turn up to work every day to provide a service.

So the difference in rats, may be the DWP saying, actually we should pay our staff more, as in return we get a solid days work from them.

It should not always be the case that non workers should be entitled to the same or better conditions, to that of an employee.

If you do not like the rate, you have 3 options

1) accept the payment (as it is not an obligation to pay)
2) walk or cycle for free
3) refuse to claim it as it is so below your expected level of travel renumeration

Wryly

"you CHOSE to meet the conditions of your benefit claim by using your car."
1.As pointed out previously, it is not my claim.
2.There is no public transport to choose as an alternative; and it is surely not your intention to ask someone who finds it difficult to walk 100yds to walk 25miles into town and back (or cycle?;))

Credit-Crunched: Suppose the DWP decided to pay their staff 100%+ of bus journeys but claimants only 50% because they felt that's what each deserved - this is getting suspiciously near to what everyone was up in arms about re MPs' expenses.

.... the DWP is a public servant. It can't go around deciding it's staff deserve a little perk now and again.
The goverment decides the moral issues (well in theory!)and make them into law which DWP is supposed to apply.

Teahfc: yes I was putting foreward another way of looking at the issue:) not invalidating what I'd previously said.

Credit-Crunched

Wryly wrote: »

"you CHOSE to meet the conditions of your benefit claim by using your car."
1.As pointed out previously, it is not my claim.
2.There is no public transport to choose as an alternative; and it is surely not your intention to ask someone who finds it difficult to walk 100yds to walk 25miles into town and back (or cycle?;))

Credit-Crunched: Suppose the DWP decided to pay their staff 100%+ of bus journeys but claimants only 50% because they felt that's what each deserved - this is getting suspiciously near to what everyone was up in arms about re MPs' expenses.

.... the DWP is a public servant. It can't go around deciding it's staff deserve a little perk now and again.
The goverment decides the moral issues (well in theory!)and make them into law which DWP is supposed to apply.

Teahfc: yes I was putting foreward another way of looking at the issue:) not invalidating what I'd previously said.

Of course it can decide if they provide a perk or two...

What on earth do you think finally salary pensions, generous sick pay, paternity leave are..

I do not know on what planet you are on, but on mine, people working should be afforded more 'perks' than someone not.

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

they reimburse travel expenses,
if you went by bus would you expect them to cover 'wear and tear'?
business travel expenses are different.

you CHOSE to meet the conditions of your benefit claim by using your car.


it isnt an essential thing, and so you are only reimbursed for the fuel
you dont use your car because it saves the taxpayer 80p, you use your car because it is convenient for YOU.

yesterday i was called a 'benefit fundamentalist' for objecting to the reforms and today im a benefit basher!

"How art the mighty fallen!":)

nannytone_2

maybe i have a split personality and just havent realises

bigboybrother

Caz3121 wrote: »

as explained in the other post - if someone asks you to travel for their benefit then they will get given a payment which may
1) be less than the HMRC rate in which case the person can claim tax relief on the difference between the payment and the HMRC rate
2) be paid the HMRC rate
3) be paid more than the HMRC rate and pay additional tax as a BIK

you are not being asked to travel for the Job Centre/Atos' benefit, you are being asked to attend for YOUR benefit

An employee in scenario 1 could complete a P87 and claim tax relief between the 20p and the HMRC rate (45p?) for the business miles
You are not a DWP employee driving business miles so this does not apply

OK forget the DWP - if I was claiming JSA there is no way that I would admit to having the use of a car. They would try and get you to take jobs further away. Public transport and the time it takes to travel (from memory that expect you to travel 90mins each way) is one thing, expecting a JSA claimant to use their car to drive for 90mins which could well mean upwards of 75 miles away from home is another.

What about travel to a pre-arranged hospital appointment. I get 15p a mile for such travel each way. The hospital is 35 miles away so I use my car to get there and back a total of 70 miles. That journey takes about 2.5 galls of diesel at a cost of £16.83. I receive £10.50 in reimbursed expenses. Not only am I out of pocket on the fuel by £6.33, who is supposed to contribute to the oil changes, servicing, tyres etc?

Expenses beit for jobsearching, attending the jobcentre or hospital visits should be paid at a rate that it costs to run that car if you are using one. That figure is 46p per mile!

bigboybrother

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

Someone working and paying taxes does not have the luxury of being able to claim to and from their home?

Hence why it is such a big mistake to admit to having a car when claiming JSA. They would expect you to look for a job much farther afield for which you would have to cover that cost out of your wages if you got the job! No point going for a job 80 miles away if it was going to cost you £73.60 in fuel and running costs on a daily basis! (160 miles @ 46p per mile)

Many years ago I used to work in London which meant a 92 mile drive there and a 92 mile drive back. The cost of having to run two cars and the upkeep as well as the fuel was tremendous. However the salary made it feasible - £130,000 pa (1989 - 1995).

poppasmurf_bewdley

Wryly wrote: »

Hi to all ..my first post here.
When you claim travel expenses for car journeys from the job centre you get paid approx 20p per mile. Atos pays about the same rate ,or less and Working Links pays even less than that.

From the latest figures I can find, DWP staff get payed 46.25p per mile,(that's for a 12-1500cc car) because that's what they have worked out it actually costs to run. Why the discrepancy?
Isn't this discrimination?

When I worked in the House of Commons many years ago, I used to be paid 25p per mile. MP's used to get 55p.

That's discrimination!

kingfisherblue

I wasn't aware that you could get any payment per mile when you have a JC appointment. As a carer with two children under 16, I have to attend a work focused interview twice a year. It wouldn't occur to me to ask for reimbursement.