[Closed] Cycle to Work Scheme and WFH

I am struggling to see that HMRC will send someone to your road at 8am in the morning with a camera and clipboard...

I suspect there will be a statement from the employer to be signed about where you work from.

I've used it (for the first time ever) last week. And whilst I am WFH right now I won't as soon as lockdown ends (teacher). And I do actually cycle to work. I know, crazy concept - using it for what it is intended.

I'm guessing if your job is permanently WFH, as in that's what's in your contract your company are going to find it harder to make you applicable.

most of my rides start and finish at home, thus meeting the criteria for c2w whilst I work from home

I’m sure I read something the other day about the 50% rule being suspended during the pandemic to try and keep people active. Just need to find a decent priced bike in stock now...

They loosened the requirement for people who got their bikes by Christmas (basically, this is not precise!) so you missed that. But otherwise what @matt_outandabout said.

I'm not so much worried about HMRC checking my house, it more about what they will ask my employer to commit to. Will my employer need to confirm I will be workplace based rather than WFH?

I looked into this with London Cycling Campaign but didn't get around to blogging or tweeting it.

Statement from cyclescheme -

The easement confirms that the Government supports the principle that employees working from home and using scheme equipment for exercise and/or utility journeys remain eligible for the cycle to work tax exemption. Furthermore, with the mass roll out of the vaccine giving us an optimistic outlook beyond spring, we believe that employees obtaining a bike via the scheme in the coming months will be able to satisfy the 50% commuting requirement over the total duration of their Hire Period.

At Cyclescheme, we take confidence from this announcement and believe that the easement timeframes will be updated as needed to reflect this new or any additional lockdowns. This is a positive and pragmatic step by the government and provides reassurance to employers that their workforce can continue to utilise the scheme

For the cycle to work schemes there is a theoretical requirement that a beneficiary uses the bike to cycle to work for 50% of the time - ie bike is *primarily* used for commute (although this has never been monitored or enforced that I'm aware of)

HMRC have said that there is an easement on this requirement for anyone on the scheme before 20 Dec 2020 and this easement will be in place till 5th April 2022.
In other words no penalties for people working from home.

Been WFH for years, employer uses the Halfords scheme via some outsourced benefits platform. I get the email when it opens, get my voucher, spend it. As there’s no requirement to buy a bike any more (idea being you can refresh one you have with new parts) my last one went in some nice wheels, tyres, brakes and a decent waterproof!

As there’s no requirement to buy a bike any more (idea being you can refresh one you have with new parts) my last one went in some nice wheels, tyres, brakes and a decent waterproof!

Really? I don't remember how they work. how often can you take a voucher?

Apparently HMRC are tightening up on the requirement to actually ride to work given so many people are now working form home

At a time when our nation is suffering one of the highest death rates anywhere in the world, and one of the contributing factors is that we're a nation of fat lazy bastards, that is incredible if true.

Really? I don’t remember how they work. how often can you take a voucher?

Every tax year.

We've moved to the halfords scheme, annoyingly they charge the most commission, so a lot of shops either won't deal, or add the commission on to the price of the voucher, so 1000 turns into 850!

It does allow the use of tredz and a list of independents, but i didn't see anything about buying something other than a bike (and accessories), didn't think they allowed frames or rolling chassis' in their deals?

Was thinking of upgrading my 27.5 to 29 by doing a rolling chassis, but not really wanting to go all in for a full bike, it's also quite depressing the lack of bikes out there, and even more depressingly the prices now, i was having a look at the top limit stuff as well, 4k is ours, and for that you get a lot of bikes with deore and select level forks, scary stuff, even with savings, thankfully not really after a new bike, but would've been nice to go 29

Our work have stopped the scheme citing exactly this, I'm sure the hundreds of folk who are obliged to work on site are delighted that we'll now be running power stations from the comfort of our living room.

We're on the Halfords scheme. I'm waiting on a Camino from Alpkit who are happy to accept the vouchers.

Not surprised shops don't accept the Halfords scheme. When I worked in a shop it really wasn't worth selling the bike as Halfords sucked all the profit out with their commission & made it a ball ache to claim back the costs.

It’s always been a massively abused middle class tax break. Surprised it’s lasted so long.

ironic really that in a minimum wage job, where it might actually help someone afford a bike to get to work, doesn’t qualify...

At a time when our nation is suffering one of the highest death rates anywhere in the world, and one of the contributing factors is that we’re a nation of fat lazy bastards, that is incredible if true

No idea if it's true, but why are you surprised? Tax break for bikes used for X, no tax breaks if bike not used for X

Oh! You were expecting joined up government thinking weren't you?!

It's crazy that I'm working in a shop, earning very little, and need a bike to commute yet everyone here is WFH office jobs and they get to use the scheme and I dont. Don't get me wrong I'd do the same, I place the blame on the policy not people who use it. It should apply to all minimum wage employees of say

Annex A of https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-to-work-scheme-implementation-guidance

Cyclists' safety equipment is not defined in legislation, although this could include:
• Cycle helmets which conform to European standard BSEN1078
• Bells and bulb horns
• Lights, including dynamo packs
• Mirrors and mudguards to ensure riders’ visibility is not impaired
• Cycle clips and dress guards
• Panniers, luggage carriers and straps to allow luggage to be safely carried
• Child safety seats
• Locks and chains to ensure the cycle can be safely secured
• Pumps, puncture repair kits, cycle tool kits and tyre sealant to allow for minor repairs
• Replacement parts to keep a cycle roadworthy
• Adaptations for disability/mobility issues.
• Reflective clothing or reflective cycle equipment, e.g. spoke reflectors

“Replacement parts to keep a cycle roadworthy” covers quite a lot, but not frames/forks.

That minimum wage rule is stupid. If you’re earning min wage and chose to spend some of it on a bike for getting to work, which given funds are taken direct from it your salary, technically puts you sub min wage, should be irrelevant. I think I was earning £17.5k pa when I first took a B2W scheme bike or maybe less. Lots of people on similar salaries do the same so I wouldn’t say it’s just a ‘middle class tax break’ though.

Lots of people on similar salaries do the same so I wouldn’t say it’s just a ‘middle class tax break’ though.

Not exclusively but being in the (Scottish) 41% tax bracket I see more of a saving than the guy on 20%. Even more so when you take child benefit into account. Our old scheme was actually set up so that higher earners saw the same benefit which was fair enough. IMO it should be taxed at the same rate for everyone.

Why should it not be for general utility cycling?

If someone's WFH and replacing car journeys with bike rides, then that's still a win.

Even if just for leisure, it's still a social good.

Why should it not be for general utility cycling?

If someone’s WFH and replacing car journeys with bike rides, then that’s still a win.

Even if just for leisure, it’s still a social good.

so don’t charge VAT on bikes and make it available to anyone...

so don’t charge VAT on bikes and make it available to anyone…

A very good point.

so don’t charge VAT on bikes and make it available to anyone…

Was always the more sensible option.

It's just one of the myriad of employee benefits, the only way it works, like a lot of them is through the tax system, so the benefits are seen most by those who pay the most tax, if they want to do something different, then it'll be through something different i'd guess.

I’m sure many people that wfh still ride to work, from front room to office, via their turbo trainer 😂

At a time when our nation is suffering one of the highest death rates anywhere in the world, and one of the contributing factors is that we’re a nation of fat lazy bastards, that is incredible if true.

The government are not banning cycling, they are just trying to warm people off using the cycle to work scheme as a tax dodge for those with no intention of ever cycling to work.

I am fairly sure all the fat people are not sitting in the living room eating fish suppers, looking at the rain lashing down, thinking "if only there was a scheme where we could save 21 or 40% on a bike"

I doubt HMRC will tighten it that much, my scheme just went from £1111 limit to £5k to encourage people to get ebikes, I could via the scheme order today a Specialised Demo DH bike if I needed it...

has anyone got a news article/hmrc article that says they are clamping down..

this sounds like fake news. i think they'll be busy enough with the covid related issues like furlough and loan scheme fraud to worry about a few cyclists making a tax saving on spending at bike shops..

my company scheme halfords is only a £1k, so in the past i'd buy from independents, would like a sonder but they are over the price and the alpkit blog states they wont accept topups..

@oikeith if you live up hill from work thats fine, the name only says cycle2work, no mention of cycling home..

@hooli, tax dodge? nothing wrong legally with tax avoidance its "tax evasion" that is bad.
ethically as a middle income earner will want to save tax, then yes saving tax on an extra bike they may not need to use but its supporting the local/UK economy. so keeps people in jobs..

Should we ban bonuses being allowable to be paid into pension pots for average earners to boost retirement planning.

At a time when our nation is suffering one of the highest death rates anywhere in the world, and one of the contributing factors is that we’re a nation of fat lazy bastards, that is incredible if true.

The point of C2W was to encourage making healthier, more environmentally friendly, economically sensible and crucially I suspect less demanding on the road and public transport infrastructure ways to get to work. It was not to encourage cycling as a hobby recreation activity. If it was, why is the same tax relief not available for static bikes and kettle bells, kayaks, running shoes or hockey sticks?

We (cyclists) have chosen a hobby that is closely aligned to a mode of transport. Many of us use it as a mode of transport too. But somehow we've collectively become entitled to think that we deserve a tax break on our leisure toys not afforded to kayakers, gym bunnies or hockeyists. That's a shame because it makes us look stupid and selfish.

And the fact that those on minimum wage who want to use it for what it is intended to help them to get to work but can't, because process, whilst their top rate tax paying boss can easily slide their weekend full suspension gnar sled through the books for a 40% saving is a national disgrace.

@whatyadoinsucka - Clumsily worded on my part. Tax avoidance with some rule bending to meet the criteria?

@hooli, its all in personal ethics, its a poor scheme for segments of society, i agree that those on lower wages should be allowed to partake, maybe over a longer time period to ensure its affordable.

blaming those middle income earners for taking advantage of saving tax.
government finances are a big black hole,

i would prefer my saved tax go to a UK/local bike shop. turning over an extra 10-20 C2W bikes may be the difference between a going concern and not.
its an emotive subject, its grey.

my last c2w bike has never ridden from home to the office, but its rode 435 mile charity ride setup by work.. we raised a lot of money (3x planned) ..

@hooli, tax dodge? nothing wrong legally with tax avoidance its “tax evasion” that is bad.
ethically as a middle income earner will want to save tax, then yes saving tax on an extra bike they may not need to use but its supporting the local/UK economy. so keeps people in jobs..

If you get a bike through the scheme that is neither designed for commuting to work and you have no intention of using it for that purpose but you still sign into a scheme that clearly states you intend to use it for 50% of the time for that purpose that must be getting very close to the legal definition of tax evasion surely?

@convert I'd say it would need a court case to align the law in this regard. i cant see a case going to court for a few hundred quid of tax saving.

@convert I’d say it would need a court case to align the law in this regard. i cant see a case going to court for a few hundred quid of tax saving evasion.

What you are describing is would/could the tax evasion be convicted. That is wholly not the same thing as has the tax evasion been committed. To say you are not committing tax evasion because no one is likely to bother attempting to convict you is something of a statement of the health of your moral compass.....

The reason for me asking was that when I asked payroll if the scheme is running this year, they sent me this:

One change since the scheme was last run is HMRC are taking a much stricter view of bikes provided requiring to have their main use as being for home to work, obviously as a result of the move for many employers to increased home working. We will be covering that in communications in order to manage expectations.

Interested to see what form this will take. The risk is that the employer will be asked to certify the bike use, for example by signing a statement that their employee is workplace based rather than WFH. If that is the case I may be not be able to access the scheme.

@franksinatra, makes sense. cant see it happening. so i will continue to use the c2w scheme till rishy or his next inline takes over..

the next budget will be interesting, tax hikes all round

My company still had the sucky £1000 limit last year. Hopefully be unlimited this year.
I view it as a thank you from the government for giving them so much tax.

so don’t charge VAT on bikes and make it available to anyone…

This, CTW scheme isn't available to those who'd benefit most from it - sole traders, zero Hours workers, low paid either get much much less benefit or find it's not available at all

It could be done much more cleverly - No VAT on 'utility' bikes, with some qualifying criteria to stop abuse. Yes, you *might* exclude a few people for whom a mountain bike is genuinely the best form of commuter vehicle but so few it's irrelevant.

I'd go with something like - supplied by the manufacturer with
- full length fixed mudguards with bolt on fixings on fork legs
- Dynamo lights
- Rack
- Road tyres

Manufactuerers/retailers have as simple way to submit a bike to get 'CTW' badge which means no VAT. Stuff like the fixed mudguards stops a crud catcher being strapped to a Santa Cruz.

Oh - and a workplace parking levy to pay for it.

I view it as a thank you from the government for giving them so much tax.

Same here - i've bought 4 bikes, a set of Hope/Pacenti wheels and an Exposure front light on the scheme so far.

So basically making the scheme pointless to most, the fact is that it's main focus is for C2W, so that could be anything, to limit that by your restrictions would reduce those who actually use this and have got into biking, it just smacks of 'if i can't have it, nobody can'. You also appear to be limiting bikes to those with disabilities or special requirements.

Again, i've never used C2W, i have had it available for years but bought my own, as i want to build my own bikes and mainly do it second hand, which includes my hardtail MTB which does the commute with its 2.6 & 2.4" MTB tyres, it has mudguards, but not full length, or a dynamo light as i prefer using something that actually works and doesn't weigh a ton!

So basically making the scheme pointless to most, the fact is that it’s main focus is for C2W, so that could be anything, to limit that by your restrictions would reduce those who actually use this and have got into biking, it just smacks of ‘if i can’t have it, nobody can’. You also appear to be limiting bikes to those with disabilities or special requirements.

No, I agree with b33k34 - although his definition might need a bit of working on. VAT removed from bikes that are obviously and significantly a mode of transport from A to B. Forget about if A and B are home and work but the purpose of the journey is getting to B rather than the leisure pursuit of the bit in between. The sort of bike you'd expect to ride in the clothes you'd do whatever you are planning to do at B in. Your classic dutch bike or a cargo bike. Electric or conventional.

As a commuter who rides 40km each way fully lycraed up (admittedly with rack and guards) I would be excluding myself. I'm happy with that - I'm the outlyer. It's getting people (not cyclists, people) who currently use their car for short journeys where they should be using a bike where government funds (or reduction in revenue if you want to be a pedant) should be best spent.

It would upset the likes of Daveylad who believes as a big tax payer high income earner he deserves a little reacharound. And for that reason I'm all for it!

has anyone got a news article/hmrc article that says they are clamping down..

this sounds like fake news

It is. HMRC aren't stopping their WFH employees from getting bikes.