MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
So cyclescheme has given me my end of hire options,,,i will be choosing the extended use period which will allow me to make the savings i thought i was getting a year ago.I do have my concerns however,,cyclescheme say that during this three year period my bike remains the property of cyclescheme and must not be disposed of in any way..Who checks this and what happens if my bike is nicked??
If you ask me,this scheme has turned out to be a load of tosh
It's your responsibility to make sure it's not nicked - including insuring it if you need to be able to replace it.
If you ask me,this scheme has turned out to be a load of tosh
Whys that?
In practice, it's unlikely that anyone will check up on what you do with it.
If [i]their[/i] bike gets nicked whilst it's in your care, you owe them a bike. In practice it'd probably be easiest to not tell them, and then to buy it off them at the end as if it hadn't been nicked.
It certainly the case that some implementations of the scheme don't leave you with much of a benefit at the end, but the tax break behind the scheme is pretty worthwhile if the scheme is set up correctly and you understand what you're getting yourself into.
It says on the agreement you sign that you must insure the bike against losses.
I got my Whyte through this scheme, including the final payment it's still a considerable saving for me. I don't understand how it's tosh?
including the final payment it's still a considerable saving for me
as a percentage of original bike costs, what was your final payment?
When i signed up a year ago there was no mention that i would have to sign an extended use agreement in order to benefit from the savings that other people enjoyed in the past.
When i signed up a year ago there was no mention that the market value of the bike could change after i signed up.
I see people defending cyclescheme bt these are generally the ones who benefited from a much bigger discount before cyclescheme changed things..
I would have been much better waiting for the sales where i could have bought a bike at the same discount(or more) without having to wait four years before i could call the bike my own.
That is why i think the scheme is tosh
When i signed up a year ago there was no mention that the market value of the bike could change after i signed up.
what did you contract say?
transfer of ownership at market rate?
It's all to do with how HMRC interpret the benefit, most people simply didn't [don't] realise that they can change their interpretation at will and thought that the projected costs were fixed
It's a bit like the projections you get for pensions & endowments
It's all to do with how HMRC interpret the benefit, most people simply didn't [don't] realise that they can change their interpretation at will and thought that the projected costs were fixed
Not really. The requirement is and always has been "fair market value". What changed is that HMRC found that many people were abusing the scheme and charging a fee that clearly wasn't a FMV. They issued guidance specifying a minimum amount above which they won't question your valuation. You're can still transfer the bike for whatever price you like, but if it's below the guideline amount you may have to justify the amount or pay tax on the difference.
When i signed up a year ago there was no mention that i would have to sign an extended use agreement in order to benefit from the savings that other people enjoyed in the past.When i signed up a year ago there was no mention that the market value of the bike could change after i signed up.
If you read what you actually signed up to, you'll find that there was no commitment to sell you the bike at all, let alone an agreed price at which it would be sold. What you signed up to was a hire agreement.
Cyclescheme certainly published "example" savings, but unfortunately these were never justifiable under the rules as they relied on selling at a nominal fee rather than FMV. You should certainly be annoyed with Cyclescheme for giving misleading examples, although as above, you won't find any commitment to those savings.
I see people defending cyclescheme bt these are generally the ones who benefited from a much bigger discount before cyclescheme changed things..I would have been much better waiting for the sales where i could have bought a bike at the same discount(or more) without having to wait four years before i could call the bike my own.
I don't defend Cyclescheme (the commercial operator), but the Cycle to Work tax break is still perfectly reasonable.
If you set it up right and without the "aid" of a commercial scheme operator, you can buy a bike in the sales, put it through the scheme, and still see savings of 40%-50% on the sale price.
What you signed up to was a hire agreement
Correct if there had been an automatic right to buy/take title it would constitute hire-purchase which is a whole different tax kettle of fish 😉
At the moment i am paying approx £50 per month for my Whyte 805, at the end i have a 1 off payment £60 and 3 more years of hire.
As i see it i get the bike for just under £700. Its not a mega saving, but considering i will happily use the bike over the next 4 years before thinking of changing then its better in my pocket.