Working from home due to coronavirus? Claim £6 week tax back on extra costs

jon81uk

suziewoozie said:

Personally it's grossly unfair that people on a low income, non taxpayers who have been forced to work from home appear not to be entitled to this help, they're the ones that need it the most!!! 

There isn't any help available though. The government is not offering anything to enable people to work from home.

The allowance is to enable employers to pay costs. If your daughter cannot work in the office and is facing higher costs to work from home they should talk to their employer about either returning to the office or getting money towards her costs.

The £6 a week is only relevant as if the money provided is over that then it needs to be declared on a tax return.

epm-84

suziewoozie said:
My daughter has been working part time from home since the start of Covid and has been told this is now permanent.  She is a non tax payer, single parent of 2 girls, on universal credit and also using her electricity and gas whilst she is working, but it appears she is unable to claim the £6 why is this?

Yes her electricity is higher, she's on a key meter which is always more expensive,  and with winter coming she will have to heat the house all day. 

There seems to be some confusion.  The employer is supposed to pay the £6 to the employee, which is then tax free.  Martin Lewis has highlighted some people will be uncomfortable asking their employer for an extra £6 a week now (given many employers are reducing the number of staff employed) so has suggested people who are taxpayers and are working from home could instead claim tax relief on £6 of their existing pay (£1.20 a week.)  As that is a tax refund, not a benefit, only people who pay tax can get it.  So your daughter needs to speak to her employer about the £6 but as she only works 20 hours a week it might be even if they agree to pay employees £6 a week for working from home, that she would only get £3 because they would pro-rata it for not being a full time employee.

Why would she need to heat the whole house all day?  Most radiators have thermostats on them so if she's working from the living room she needs to ensure she turns off the bedroom radiators are turned off/turned right down or if she's working from a spare bedroom then she needs to ensure the downstairs radiators are turned off/turned right down.  She should also be able to switch off the heating altogether for a couple of hours in the middle of the day without it getting too cold, even if it's snowing outside. You only need to have all radiators on all day if there's people in every room all day.  

Grumpy_chap

epm-84 said:

There seems to be some confusion.  The employer is supposed to pay the £6 to the employee, which is then tax free.  

I do not think it is correct to say that the employer is "supposed" to pay the £6.

• The employer is permitted to pay nothing.
• The employer is permitted to pay up to £6 per week without creating a BIK charge.
• The employer is permitted to pay any higher figure they choose, but this will create a BIK charge for the employee.

To say the employer is "supposed" to pay the tax-free amount would be like saying the employer is "supposed" to pay the tax-free personal allowance as salary.  It is simply not true and most employers pay their employees more or less than the personal allowance - I suspect there are very few people who are paid exactly at the personal allowance level and, if they are, that is more likely by coincidence that design.

This may seem like semantics but, if the OP's daughter asks her employer to help after fully explaining her situation, she may be fortunate to land on a friendly ear.  If the OP's daughter goes in stating to her employer that they are "supposed" to pay the £6, that is already "aggressive" tone of language and far less likely to result in a desirable outcome.

epm-84

Grumpy_chap said:

epm-84 said:

There seems to be some confusion.  The employer is supposed to pay the £6 to the employee, which is then tax free.  

I do not think it is correct to say that the employer is "supposed" to pay the £6.

• The employer is permitted to pay nothing.
• The employer is permitted to pay up to £6 per week without creating a BIK charge.
• The employer is permitted to pay any higher figure they choose, but this will create a BIK charge for the employee.

To say the employer is "supposed" to pay the tax-free amount would be like saying the employer is "supposed" to pay the tax-free personal allowance as salary.  It is simply not true and most employers pay their employees more or less than the personal allowance - I suspect there are very few people who are paid exactly at the personal allowance level and, if they are, that is more likely by coincidence that design.

This may seem like semantics but, if the OP's daughter asks her employer to help after fully explaining her situation, she may be fortunate to land on a friendly ear.  If the OP's daughter goes in stating to her employer that they are "supposed" to pay the £6, that is already "aggressive" tone of language and far less likely to result in a desirable outcome.

I don't think you really needed to waste your time writing all that.  OK the first sentence of my post wasn't worded as well as it could have been but the point I was making is the £6 isn't a government benefit for working from home (which was the implication in the original post), it's what an employer is allowed to pay their employee tax free.  If someone incorrectly posted that the government should top up everyone's salary to £12,500 if they earn less than that, then would it not be correct to point out it's their employer who pays them and they need to speak to their employer if they don't think they earn enough for what they do?

I did make it clear in later sentences that she needs to ask her employer and that it's the employer's choice whether or not to pay the £6 and I also said even if they decided to pay £6 to full time employees they might decide to pro-rata it for part time employees.