[Closed] Bike to work scheme abuse - I got caught

They'll put him in prison.

[img] [/img]

I need to find a cheap one-way flight to Mexico!

I don't think Mexico's the place to be right now.

tell em you have a trailgator arm and you need to ride with your son to school before going to work ?

trail-rat, that was going to be my excuse. Seriously, HR are going to call me in for 'a chat' this afternoon.

just tell them you can't ride a bike and thought this was the perfect opportunity to learn.

tell them it is a new niche andyou are so hardcore that you have done singlespeed, utility, fixie unicycle and this is the final piece in the jigsaw for the fleet.

Tell them your its not your fault if your son's school does not have a 'bike to school' scheme.

edit - or nursery for that matter

< laughs that he tries to get the stabilisers through >
< laughs again that he wants to go to Mexico >

Depnds what your company policy is. And whether they like you or not!

The 'chat' might be a frightener, but if they've gone to the bother to speak to you I'd expect at least a slapped wrist.

fixie unicycle

I suspect non-fixie unicycle would be more of a niche, imagine the masochism involved in doing that!

I'd also question a 12" bike for a 2 year old.

just ride it to work, ride right into your meeting with HR and say what?

Just got out. HR girl found it all very funny that she has to spend the whole afternoon calling in cyclescheme abusers over their purchases. It seems I'm not alone.

'What would someone want an £800 pair of wheels for without the rest of the bike?' was one comment.

{simpsons mode} haaa ha! {simpsons}

coffeeking, he's three next month - vat/tax/NI free birthday present!

If it was the revenue who wanted a chat you might want to worry. If it's your HR department they'll just say "please don't do that" won't they?

don't you only have to ride in a couple of times on it for everything to be ok?

if so:
[img] ?v=0[/img]
is the way forward

hope they see the funny side of it...

not really what the scheme is there for though really 😉

I haven't got the bike, I just tried to order it.

Basically, they just strongly said 'No, you can't have it'.

twinklydave, if I want a go on his bike, he'll want a go on mine!

I did that but Halfords busted me, not my company.

But you haven't actually done anything wrong you just tried to and failed.
What worries me is that you actually thought you might get away with it. I think you'll find HR are calling you in because they cannot actually believe they employed you in the first place and just want to find out who exactly did give you a job :-). Of course you should have charged your son's bike to your second home allowance which would have been fine.

If someone working for me did it they would probably find themselves getting a written warning.

I'm sorry, but if you're dumb enough to try and get stabilisers and a kids bike, you deserve all you get.

Please tell me this is a wind up?

"12 inch -no I meant 21 inch"

aP - why? Because you'd worry about the revenue poking their nose in?

As far as I can tell the only issue is the bit in IR176 about being mostly used for travel to work (which is of course unprovable). The computers scheme had no such caveats as far as I can remember and so people were claiming for any old computer equipment, GPS units, PDAs, etc.

A tax dodge is a tax dodge, you claim for what you can. At least these dodges give something back to regular people unlike, say, the capital gains allowance.

And how tight are you?

porterclough - Member

aP - why? Because you'd worry about the revenue poking their nose in?

that's a pretty good reason, i'd say - implicating your company if they don't pick up on it...

If you bought his 3rd birthday pressie on the scheme, and rode it part-way to work once before hiding it in the loft for the next 11 months, you'd be fulfilling all the criteria of the scheme...

Miketually I don't think that fits the 50% criteria does it?

Do I have to use the bike for work?

You can use the bike however you like; a bike purchased under Cyclescheme should be used for work journeys at least 50% of the time. You don't have to cycle to work for a specified number of days throughout the year and you don't have to record your trips or mileage. You may not claim expenses for business trips made using the bike.

Sufr - read it again - fits the criteria exactly.

Besides which, who would know or care how many times he used it "for leisure".

Miketually I don't think that fits the 50% criteria does it?

It more than fulfils it - [b]100%[/b] of the bike's use in the lease year was for commuting purposes.

Well, if nothing else, in the current climate it'd put him on the list of four who might be made redundant next month.

aP - why?

Given that your company directors will attempt to screw the inland revenue every way they can, why is it so bad when a lowly employee tries to take advantage of one of the few tax breaks open to the regular person?

I'm a bit conflicted over the bike to work scheme and people who use it creatively.

On the one hand, if it's abused it could be withdrawn, like the home computer scheme.

On the other hand, if it gets people cycling at all, it will save the government cash, so I don't have a problem with people who wouldn't otherwise buy a bike getting one on the scheme, even if they don't use it to ride to work.

I have a bike bought under the scheme, which will only be used for commuting, shopping, etc. But, I'd have been riding to work anyway, so there isn't a benefit to society from me getting the bike.

Also, the 50% rule is a bit silly. If I bought a road bike on the scheme and rode it to work every single day, it'd do about 1000 miles in a year for commuting, which could easily be outstripped by leisure rides.

Damn.

I'm about to try to get my son a trials bike on the scheme... second thoughts, I like the wheels idea so just need to find a helpful shop.

I am one of the company directors, and I've put a lot of money where my mouth is to keep 40 other people in work, it comes out of my cashflow as we have to stump up the money to the bike shop, and at the moment unnecessary expenditure isn't very helpful.
There's always another side to the coin, mate.

what about the self-employed?

they get jack diddly squat. i would have loved this scheme were i still in the UK and available to me.

and what's this home computers thing about?

seems like a lot of freebies to me.

home computer scheme was abused by the retailers ... upping the retail price so they didnt loose out to the scheme ....price fixing if you will as computer RRP is ever changing

just tell the shop to write on the form a load of safety equipment that comes to the total amount of the "secret thing" your trying to buy then when you have your voucher take what you want... every bodies happy

This is the funniest thread I've read for ages. I hope you don't get into bother over what might have seemed like a good idea at the time.

I also hope that your directors aren't too busy posting on bike forums in the middle of the working day to realise that the company gains from the national insurance payment as well as the employee. The employer will still gain money whatever you spend the voucher on. Still, if it massages your own ego to talk like a ruthless business tycoon on a bike forum then more power to your typing fingers. However your comments might be better received on a ruthless business tycoon forum.

The only person who stands to loose from abuse of the scheme is the tax man and as with all these schemes it will get binned as soon as any misuse is identified. Stabilisers? there's always someone who spoils it for everyone else.

On a practical note I don,t think the scheme really scales to lower cost (kids?) bikes because the payment that you make at the end of the term to make the bike yours will nearly negate the tax savings.

See, if we were Italians, with their casual attitude to tax and government, no one would bat an eyelid.

Its so uniquely english that without being able to "identify any actual target" that HR is suspicious. Does it really, actually matter in the long run who gets the bike from the earner in the family. The end result is 1 less fat kid, 1 more happy employee and one more bike shop with a sale.

Whilst I applaud the intend and scope of the scheme (I have a bike myself) does the original posters position actually, in the scheme of things, where there is still no harm, only benefits all round, matter one jot?

I'm with J68, some of you (AP)need to lighten up and before you think of lecturing me AP, don't I have been there and done it, in the final analysis if your business has so little cash flow that a kids bike might cause you pain then you might want to spend less time on STW forums.

I can see AP's point, that he's stumping up the cash to start with, but realistically is there any differecne between the emplyee taking a kids bike, and taking a bike for himself, in so far as the company is concerned? No - the result is the same, the scheme is still operative and the cost the same. No one looses. Its not quite a "victimless crime", as I struggle to see where the "crime" is.

I don't use my bike for 50% of journeys. If I did, I'd have no bloody energy at work! And it rains far too often, and we have no shower or changing facilties.