Uniform tax rebate unfair ruling

BeanyBum

Hello all

I've applied 3 or 4 times for my uniform rebate. Each time they deny me and I've gotten so wound up that I've even sent them proof of my uniform requirements from my employer and proof that it is in my contract I must wear these items or face disciplinary action (uniform policy is very strict).

I called and enquired on what the problem is and I was told that claims cannot be made for tights and cosmetics as they can be worn anywhere. I can understand the cosmetics part but the tights I'm certain he is talking complete and utter rubbish.

I would rather they be honest and say that the discovery of the uniform rebate means they're forking out a lot more than they would like than to tell me rubbish that I know is wrong, unless they've changed the rules after all??

jacques_chirac

Tights can be worn outside of work, as can cosmetics! What is your job, are you supplied with a uniform (items with the company logo on, for instance) or do you wear your own clothing?

Here is the HMRC guidance on the matter:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-tools.htm

McKneff

I don't know why you are getting so het up about it.

It is a set rate for the year, around about an allowance of £80 or so.
not individual items.

And its the tax on £80 ie 20% around £16 a year..

marliepanda

Are the tights branded to your workplace?

Its specifically uniform, so an Asda jacket or Subway branded tshirt. An office could require 'smart attire' but you couldnt claim uniform rebate on it.

paddedjohn

McKneff wrote: »

I don't know why you are getting so het up about it.

It is a set rate for the year, around about an allowance of £80 or so.
not individual items.

And its the tax on £80 ie 20% around £16 a year..

That's for the washing of said uniformed isn't it, sounds like the OP is trying to reclaim the costs of purchasing uniform.

BeanyBum

There are other items I've requested but those are the ones he got really snarky about.

I work for an airline and they provide us with a branded and very recognisable and known uniform (jacket, shirt and skirt). The extras that they say we must wear such as tights and cosmetics are not provided and we don't get an allowance for. The tights must be skinned toned and my skin tone isn't easily available unlike shades like navy blue or barely black which you can get from any supermarket.

I'm not really worked up about it but I don't get how my colleagues got theirs for the same items I put in for.

McKneff

paddedjohn wrote: »

That's for the washing of said uniformed isn't it, sounds like the OP is trying to reclaim the costs of purchasing uniform.

Thanks, I misinterpreted it

dodger1

BeanyBum wrote: »

There are other items I've requested but those are the ones he got really snarky about.

I work for an airline and they provide us with a branded and very recognisable and known uniform (jacket, shirt and skirt). The extras that they say we must wear such as tights and cosmetics are not provided and we don't get an allowance for. The tights must be skinned toned and my skin tone isn't easily available unlike shades like navy blue or barely black which you can get from any supermarket.

I'm not really worked up about it but I don't get how my colleagues got theirs for the same items I put in for.

Personally I don't believe there should be any tax allowance for tights but if your colleagues are getting help from HMRC for the same thing then either so should you or they should have their allowance removed.

BeanyBum

Thanks dodger1. I don't mind but fair is fair and I've seen it myself what my colleagues have claimed for and are getting help with. I'd understand if I was someone who was trying my luck but as my colleagues are getting theirs I'm fairly certain that there is some sort of entitlement.

BeanyBum

Thanks Blondebubbles. I can't work out how they did it either but I know for a fact it's been done. We all put in for the same items. They got cheques for refunds for the previous years and get an allowance now but mine is the only one that HM seem to just flat out refuse. One or two were denied at first and were advised by HM to simply apply again and they were then successful.

I mean it's not that serious, just a tad bit unfair. Ah well. Thanks everyone!

FBaby

They probably got it because their claims were checked in detail. If there were to looked at closely, they might find they have to repay the full amount anyway maybe?