Terms of Employment - Conflict

Hi

I've been employed with a company for over 20 years and as part of my terms of employment I am entitled to a company car and a fully expensed fuel card (within the UK), or a financial payment.

For a large number of years, due to my work circumstances (home / office location) I utilised the company car / fuel card option. A number of years ago I opted to take the financial payment in leui of the company car / fuel card. It is probably pertinent to point out that the company car / fuel card are not neccessarily linked, i.e. I could have not taken the company car (used my own) but continued with the fully expensed fuel card if I had chosen to. I chose not to simply because when I chose to take the financial payment my role within the company had changed and I could be classified as a home worked and therefore any miles on business would be reimbursed.

So, fast forward to today, and the same company wishes to change their policy and remove the fully expensed fuel card. They have gone about this in a very bad way (from my perspective), in a very draconian way and have basically stated that because I do not the fuel card it has been "deemed that I have voluntarilly given up the fuel card" and am therefore no longer entitled to it.

There is no documentation to this effect, nothing documented within the comapnies own policy documents and I have not been advised (verbally or in written form) that this would be the case.

So, from a employment law position, anyone with any experience of these types of situations and if it is worth arguing the point with the company?
«1

Comments

  • sangie595
    sangie595 Posts: 6,092 Forumite
    There appears to be a word missing that makes the sense difficult to interpret. But I assume it says that you don't use the fuel card? In which case, so what - why wouldn't they take it back? You aren't using it.

    Bottom line - employers can change policies. If that is the case it should be done fairly. But I am struggling to see why any of this matters.
  • fluffyanimal
    fluffyanimal Posts: 23
    First Post
    Forumite
    Hi

    You are correct it should state that I currently do not use the fuel card but, others who do use the fuel card and are on the same terms of employment as myself are in the same boat.

    My point is that the 'package' that consitutes my terms of employment provided for either said company car and / or fully expensed fuel card, or a finacial payment in lieu of.

    Whilst companies may very well change policies, which they are entitled to do so, and which they have done; as an example they changed the company car policy for new employees from 2003 onwards but this change does not affect pre-existing employees, etc, etc.

    It is a change to my terms of employment and this, surely cannot be made without due consultation and consideration around what is considered reasonable and equitable?

    For example, if my role reverted to where I need to travel to an office this would entail significant cost to me, one which I would not have needed to bear under my terms of employment (fully expensed fuel card) albeit I would once this change is implemented.

    My point is that this is not simply just a change to policy, it is a change to my terms of employment.

    I was hoping I might get some input from any one with simialr expereince (change of terms of employment imposed) or from any employment lawyer or similar.
  • What are you claiming to have lost?

    As far as I can read it, you were entitled to a car and fuel card or a financial payment, and you chose the payment.

    Now, again as far as I can tell, they have withdrawn the fuel card, but not the car. So what is the choice now? Car or financial payment? Have they reduced the payment, it that your complaint?
  • TELLIT01
    TELLIT01 Posts: 16,364
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper PPI Party Pooper
    Forumite
    I don't understand the issue either. If the card hasn't been used I presume you put in an expenses claim each month and get reimbursed that way. The company may have to pay a charge each month for the use of the fuel card system and can see a saving by not continuing to pay for something which isn't used. Or am I missing something?
  • LilElvis
    LilElvis Posts: 5,835
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    The precise wording of your employment contract may well be key. They have, previously, allowed you to chop and change how you take a vehicle/cash/fuel card but the wording in the contract might allow them to say that once you have made a choice then that is it. Someone more knowledgeable could doubtlessly confirm if the fact that you have been allowed to opt in and out of the various schemes now means that it has become an implied term.

    It would also be pertinent if the section of your contract relating to vehicles also says that it is dependent on prevailing policies in the staff handbook which are subject to change (or similar wording).

    Have you asked HR how they have arrived at their decision that they are legally allowed to vary your contract?
  • sangie595
    sangie595 Posts: 6,092 Forumite
    Hi

    You are correct it should state that I currently do not use the fuel card but, others who do use the fuel card and are on the same terms of employment as myself are in the same boat.

    My point is that the 'package' that consitutes my terms of employment provided for either said company car and / or fully expensed fuel card, or a finacial payment in lieu of.

    Whilst companies may very well change policies, which they are entitled to do so, and which they have done; as an example they changed the company car policy for new employees from 2003 onwards but this change does not affect pre-existing employees, etc, etc.

    It is a change to my terms of employment and this, surely cannot be made without due consultation and consideration around what is considered reasonable and equitable?

    For example, if my role reverted to where I need to travel to an office this would entail significant cost to me, one which I would not have needed to bear under my terms of employment (fully expensed fuel card) albeit I would once this change is implemented.

    My point is that this is not simply just a change to policy, it is a change to my terms of employment.

    I was hoping I might get some input from any one with simialr expereince (change of terms of employment imposed) or from any employment lawyer or similar.

    If you want an employment lawyer "or similar" - whatever that is - then pick up the phone, book an appointment and pay the bill. Don't come on a free site full of anonymous posters.

    For what it is worth, since our views are not of any interest to you, but maybe someone else will get some benefit.... They've imposed a change of terms which costs you not a penny. You may resign for breach of contract and try out your luck at a tribunal. You won't win, but feel free to do so. Seriously - this is an insignificant change which costs not a single thing to you, but one day you might have to travel to an office and pay the cost. Boo hoo. Everyone pays their travel to work. And that's what HMRC say too - you aren't entitled to travel expenses or payment from your employer for a commute. Reasonable and equitable is that emp0loyees pay their costs to get to work. And back again.

    BTW... I am "something similar" and really, there are people whose jobs are being lost every day, who are getting wage cuts, and working longer hours for less money, and you think that having to hand back a card you aren't using is a hardship? I thought I had heard it all...
  • Masomnia
    Masomnia Posts: 19,506
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 9 June 2017 at 1:14AM
    Unless you're going to lose out as a result I don't see your case.

    Maybe you could argue it was a breach of your contract, but I suspect that if you're no worse off the most you'd be entitled to in the event of a successful constructive dismissal/breach of contract claim is your notice period.
    “I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.” - P.G. Wodehouse
  • FBaby
    FBaby Posts: 18,367
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    I chose not to simply because when I chose to take the financial payment my role within the company had changed and I could be classified as a home worked and therefore any miles on business would be reimbursed.
    So you decided to take the financial payment that came with being able to get your petrol cost reimbursed through claiming mileage. They have now realised that they were double paying staff that way, and looking at making savings for the company, have decided to impose you could only have one or the other.

    You're not happy not not be double paid for your petrol and using the argument that you should have a say in their change in policy. If that's the case, you are wrong. They can change their policies at all time without consultation. There are only some areas of employment they need to legally adhere to, but having to continue to double pay staff isn't one of them.
  • getmore4less
    getmore4less Posts: 46,882
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post I've helped Parliament
    Forumite
    edited 9 June 2017 at 5:41AM
    I think what the OP is saying that is significant.
    (well not saying but it is wrapped up in there)

    Their T&C include the option of a Fuel card which for a BIK/salary tax adjustment cover the personal use including commuting.

    The change will remove that benefit.

    Currently their personal mileage makes the BIK charge outway the benefit of personal use so OP had opted for the cash option for the car and business mileage.

    Should the OP personal car usage increase for example if they were to return to commuting to work then they will not be able to go back to a fuel card when it is more beneficial.

    Most company car policies I have seen/used have wiggle room to allow the employer to adjust the way they provide the benefits.
  • fluffyanimal
    fluffyanimal Posts: 23
    First Post
    Forumite
    LilElvis wrote: »
    The precise wording of your employment contract may well be key. They have, previously, allowed you to chop and change how you take a vehicle/cash/fuel card but the wording in the contract might allow them to say that once you have made a choice then that is it. Someone more knowledgeable could doubtlessly confirm if the fact that you have been allowed to opt in and out of the various schemes now means that it has become an implied term.

    It would also be pertinent if the section of your contract relating to vehicles also says that it is dependent on prevailing policies in the staff handbook which are subject to change (or similar wording).

    Have you asked HR how they have arrived at their decision that they are legally allowed to vary your contract?
    Hi

    In their communications they have stated that they have 'deemed that I have voluntarily given up the fuel card'.

    I have requested any sort of policy documents or other documentation that covers this aspect but none has been forthcomming.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards