There are a fair few of us on here who have benefited through the scheme, but I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find someone who agreed that the system was either fair or could not be improved.

On the plus side, there are more bikes in circulation and probably more bikes riding them as a result of the scheme.

On the downside, the 40% tax payers get most benefit (again), and there is the potential for the higher demand to push up the price of some bikes in some price ranges.

So what would should be changed?

1. I'd restrict the savings to the equivalent of basic rate tax + vat;
2. Limit the ability to buy bikes which are not suited to communting (unless a good reason can be provided) e.g. full sus MTB bikes; and
3. Remove VAT from all bikes to everyone;

Whaddya think?

It's a great scheme I know loads of folk who have got bikes this way without which wouldn't have, so helping economy and encouraging people to use a bike – surely that's a good thing – for work or not

I think it's a good scheme and shouldn't be knocked as I'm sure whichever Government we get next would love to knock any scheme that reduces revenue to the Treasury on the head.

Its just another income re-distribution scheme (with a side order of commercial profit at the expense of the tax-payer), and I'm sure at least half the people who've taken it up could afford the bikes anyway.

We need to stop doing stuff like this, and all the other grants (solar panels, farmers set-aside etc), it just takes money out of the average citizen, and passes it on to those who can afford it anyway.

But I've no problem specifically with the C2W scheme…

This is my own personal view and nothing to do with my employers but i'd like to see the scheme capped at £500. It's enough to get a bike to commute to work on, it's enough to get those who never thought about getting a bike on a bike, and it'd stop folk taking the pi$$

It should be set up so the lowest waged get the most benefit.

Houns – Member
This is my own personal view and nothing to do with my employers but i'd like to see the scheme capped at £500. It's enough to get a bike to commute to work on, it's enough to get those who never thought about getting a bike on a bike, and it'd stop folk taking the pi$$

Unfortunately, £500 is too low a level to be sustainable for a Local Bike Shop.

Trade price of bike + VAT + commission paid to the scheme administrators + build/PDI cost + free six week service = more than the RRP of the bike.

A £500 bike wouldn't still be going given my commute. I'd have replaced every component on it within the year!

A workmate has priced up pretty much the perfect commuter and it came to just over our company's £1500 limit. It will last for years though with only minor component replacement and still look fantastic.

Although I do agree that people taking the pee is what's going to make this scheme easier to kill when the bean counters analyse it. (however that analysis at consultancy rates would have paid for the scheme for two years…)

I think one would want to know some actual facts before deciding:

– how many car journeys have been saved as a result?
– are people who get C2C bikes healthier (=reduced NHS and company healthcare costs) ?

Knowing that might alter your decisions about whether to cancel the whole thing or make it even more appealing.

Compulsory cycling proficiency when a bike is purchased under the scheme?

Well I say it's better than the car scrappage scheme….

Spud : Compulsory cycling proficiency when a bike is purchased under the scheme?

it's called BikeAbility these days, and yes that's a bloody good idea. (Also it would keep me in work 🙂 )

mudshark + 1

LOL, oen im wiv bommars, etc.

i'd say the scheme works well as it is – even people who don't take the p155 can still rack up a grand easily: bike + lights + clothes + lock + etc.

As far as I can see, it doesn't attract non-cyclists to the scheme and encourage them to cycle to work (which is presumably the ultimate aim of the scheme).

if it's purely for cycling enthuiasts to get bikes on the cheap then it's failed.

What i'd like to see is a low rate loan to purchase the bike and then money back for actually using it. Companies could run a sign in process where the champion of it provides acknoledgement of the user taking part on a weekly/monthly basis. After 6 months of using the bike say three days a week or more, you get a cash back discount, or something.

Non-cyclists need to see a benefit from it and the existing system only offers them a cheaper bike.

samuri – Member
As far as I can see, it doesn't attract non-cyclists to the scheme and encourage them to cycle to work (which is presumably the ultimate aim of the scheme).

Actually, I know of several people who have obtained a bike through the scheme and for whom that has kicked off their cycling.

a mate from work, with no real passion for cycling, got involved through the scheme, we can't stop him now.

wikkid orsum.

Perhaps a better use for government money would be if the tax free mileage rate for cyclists matched that for cars – 20p now. Or if the rate could be claimed for normal trips to work though some sort of proof needed there I suppose.

I think it needs to be either more tightly controlled, or the opposite – completely open.

So either a £500-600 budget restricted to commuter style bikes or a couple of grand and allow people to buy any bike or parts to upgrade bikes (I'd rather repair existing bikes than get a brand new one every year). Least then everyone would know where they stand.

The fact higher tax payers benefit more is wrong, as tbh they probably could afford a decent spec bike without government help in the first place.

(2) doesn't really make sense, the point being to get people using bikes to get to work, they may also want to use that bike at weekends and can't afford both, it's perfectly easy to commute 34 miles a day on a full sus with slicks (I did it for 12 months).

I like mudsharks paid commuter milage plan, it'll start people off buying a cheap bike and probably see them moving to a better bike sooner etc. Maybe paid milage to a certain value, then cash off a new bike.

Policing and administering it would be a nightmare though.

In my workplace it's introduced a good number of people to cycling. Plus we have a very healthy relationship with the lbs, Pitsford Cycles, and it's all done on trust and a phone call. Bike sorted in a couple of days rather than all the fuss of vouchers etc that we had to go through with Evans.
As a PAYE employee there aren't any opportunities to 'take the pee', I can't see anything wrong with doing it every year. It pales in comparison with the potential bike collection of Baroness Uddin and, incidentally, she looks like she could benefit from getting a bike.

i don't see how you could possibly restrict it to "commuter style" bikes. it would take way too much effort to enforce, and what if your commute is off-road??

i think the DFT should have cooperated with the Inland Revenue a bit more over the final valuation.

My company has implemented the scheme, yet the bike shed is just a galvanized steel rack that can hold 4 bikes (150 people in the office) chained to the smoking shelter with a padlock. Its completely insecure! thats what pees me off, although its more to do with the company than the scheme.