Ian Smith wrote:
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>On the other hand, if the contract says that a mileage rate will
>>>be paid to employees using their own private car on necessary
>>>journeys (for the purpose of carrying out their role), the
>>>provision of pool bicycles renders the (hypothetical) car journey
>>>unnecessary, so there's no need to pay the mileage. It's not
>>>penalising the driver - it's simply not rewarding them for doing
>>>something outside their contract.
>> "Mileage" is not a reward. It's compensation for costs incurred.
> Not at the rates paid by most companies (near the upper limit of the
> rate allowed by HMRC) - when I did significant work mileage I never
> spent as much on my car in a year as I got paid as mileage.
That is almost certainly a misperception or a citation of an atypical
case.
The HMRC rates (which, incidentally, have not increased for quite a
few years, despite a rise in the price of fuel of around 100% since
the last rise) are set so as to cover an apportioned segment of all
the costs of running the vehicle. That includes the fixed costs
(interest on the loan or the interest foregone on the capital
employed, insurance, road tax, membership of a motoring organisation,
etc) as well as the obvious variable costs, depreciation with higher
mileage, servicing, repairs, fuel, oil, spares, etc. My guess is that
you did not include all of those costs in your estimate (or
alternatively, you were running a banger where depreciation wasn't an
issue). But rest assured, the government (and organisations like the
AA) don't forget about those costs; when you see headline amounts like
"£120 a week" to run a car, they have included all those things.
If the Revenue believed that the allowable amount represented a
profit, they'd reduce it. 40p a mile is not a profitable figure,
though it might enable some to buy "better" cars than they would
otherwise feel able to afford (because they're only really paying for
part of it and part of its use). That's the way it works.
> You seem to be advocating that companies should pay people
> compensation for costs incurred in doing things the company doesn't
> want done. Should I claim a payout from my company for buying myself
> a new lawn mower?
What a peculiar thing for you to say.
What I am saying is:
(a) companies cannot expect to peremptorily vary a contract (not even
a merely-implied contract) part-way through its currency; a good
example of why is the situation where an employee has just taken out a
loan to buy a new vehicle which they would not have bought had there
not been the prospect of part of the costs of the vehicle being met by
the company paying its share for its use*), and
(b) in any event, unless there was an express proviso at the time of
hiring, no company can expect an employee to travel by a method *they*
(the employee) think is inherently unsafe. Other peoples' opinions on
that (including the employer's and the government's opinions) are
irrelevant. AFAICS, insisting on employees cycling is something that
has not been seen since the days of the telegram messenger and the
butcher's boy. Re-starting it (and widening its scope) is a matter
which could never be achieved quickly.
I do about 15,000 business miles a year in my own car. I operate on
the model of buying a new car every four or five years, with the
expenses partly paying for it. The vehicles are worth bugger all as
trade-ins because of the high mileage they do (the last one had
110,000 miles on it at five years old). I am now about two years into
a finance deal. If my employer asked me to start cycling, for even
part of the journeys**, I would refuse on both grounds stated above.
The request would be, in the circumstances, simply unreasonable. It
would be well outside my interests to agree, and highly disruptive of
the employer/employee relationship* for them to insist (which they
wouldn't do - they're far too sensible for that).
[*Even if the proposition were simply that the employee should start
to use a "company car", a certain amount of notice might well be
required - possibly running into several years - in order to cover the
owners of nearly-new cars who would have to dispose of them and/or
make arrangements for settling loans without the hitherto-expected
part-assistance.]
[**I think you'd agree that 15,000 miles pa on a bike would not be a
starter in any case.]
