Business mileage rules unfair?

InsideInsurance

FBaby wrote: »

You can't have two bases. If you believe that you are more often at one location for the benefit of your employer (rather than because you can then claim more travel costs), then it is something to take up with them. It is not a case of 'easily calling it your office' though as there are rules around it.

HMRC says you can and you wouldnt get commuting cost to either.

I've worked for at least a half dozen companies and seen at least a half dozen different interpretations of the rules.

The most complex one was about not being able to claim any part that is a shared direction of your normal commute, even if you dont normally drive to work . So I have a train season ticket which I pay for monthly but on a day I had to go to their north of London office when I lived south of London and decided to drive then I could only claim the mileage from central london (normal office) to north of London even though I was still paying my rail fair


Ignoring the law and simply going on fairness, if you normally drive to work but are asked to go somewhere else that is closer to home than normal it doesnt really feel fair to claim a mileage when you've actually been saved travelling distance.

Now the OP seems to be trying to suggest that they dont have a standard office/ commute and thus all journeys are exceptional. If this is the case then discuss with HR/ line manager to get your formal base changed. That said, remember HMRC consider your perm place of work to be where you regularly go for an extended period and you can have more than one.

techguy81

InsideInsurance wrote: »

That said, remember HMRC consider your perm place of work to be where you regularly go for an extended period and you can have more than one.

I might visit what is deemed my office three times a week to collect equipment, sometimes none. I spend very little time there, which is probably why the feeling of unfairness has arisen.

lakes17

And it's this feeling of unfairness that has come across as wanting it all ways. Hence the reason you got all of these comments. The reasoning behind the business mileage is to ensure that employees aren't out of pocket which, in your case, you are not and would be gaining a tidy sum which is completely unreasonable. The fact that you are not allowed to claim under the circumstances you've explained is completely fair and reasonable.

silverwhistle

Could be worse: when I was in IT my lack of seniority meant I had to use pool cars, so as I lived a few miles from work only owned an old banger.

A number of times I refused the pool car for legitimate safety reasons.
- "Can you use your own car to get to H.O.?"
-- "Sorry, it's not insured for business usage"

Cue scrabbling around for one of the more senior guy's allocated cars and, even though I always allowed plenty of time, being late for meetings with senior staff or director.

You could always ask to use a pool car...:D

techguy81

lakes17 wrote: »

And it's this feeling of unfairness that has come across as wanting it all ways. Hence the reason you got all of these comments. The reasoning behind the business mileage is to ensure that employees aren't out of pocket which, in your case, you are not and would be gaining a tidy sum which is completely unreasonable. The fact that you are not allowed to claim under the circumstances you've explained is completely fair and reasonable.

The way I'm looking at it is, if I spend far more time working within a few miles of home (and that's a fair amount of driving between local sites), my permenant workplace should be stated in this area, not 15 miles away. I don't mind paying the commute a few miles and back, that's fair.

In a former life I was self-employed and had a business a few miles away from home. Anything after the few mile commute was claimed. I don't see how the LA should be any different, just because they've given me a "base" on paper, where I spend a fraction of my working time.

It's not wanting it all ways, it's just wanting what I believe I should be entitled to.

liney

techguy81 wrote: »

The way I'm looking at it is, if I spend far more time working within a few miles of home (and that's a fair amount of driving between local sites), my permenant workplace should be stated in this area, not 15 miles away. I don't mind paying the commute a few miles and back, that's fair.

Your work place is not home though. Your work place is the office, from which you should travel to various sites. You are fortunate not to have a boss who insists that you clock in 'at work' each morning before travelling to site; some do.

You could challenge this and ask for a contractural change, even though you are not out of pocket financially, and you are gaining time everyday by not making the 15 mile commute. You might get your own way... or you might be forced to drive 15 miles to 'work' every morning, before turning around and driving back to site. You will have a few extra £ a week, and lose 3 - 4 hours of your time. I know what i'd do.

RedFraggle

FBaby wrote: »

You can't have two bases. If you believe that you are more often at one location for the benefit of your employer (rather than because you can then claim more travel costs), then it is something to take up with them. It is not a case of 'easily calling it your office' though as there are rules around it.

As said above, you can. HMRC treat anywhere you attend regularly as part of your job as a "base" and being paid for travel to that place is considered a taxable benefit. We have 3 offices, 1 of which I am contracted to work at and the other 2 I attend 1 to 3 times per month. All 3 of them are treated as "commuting" by HMRC and when I travel to the 2 I'm not contracted to and am reimbursed tax and NI have to be paid.
I have been into my "contracted office" twice in 6 months, I have to take that travel off any claims, but I prefer to remember that the ability to work from home is a luxury than moan about it.