# C2W Scheme - Proof of 50% worth of commuting??



## smokeysmoo (7 Aug 2014)

I've searched but there's a gazzillion threads and life's too short TBH 

I'm asking for a friend who's employer has just started the C2W scheme.

Long story short - he saw it as an easy way for n+1, but now says he'd have to prove at least 50% of his commutes were made by bike, and if he can't then he'd have to repay the full amount.

He has a company car and his position means that commuting by bike is not always possible.

I've never heard of this proof thing myself, but then again I've never had the chance to use C2W, or even know anyone directly who has.

So is this true, and if so how on earth can you prove, (or they disprove), that you have used it enough?

All replies will be passed on, thanks


----------



## paddy01 (7 Aug 2014)

Don't know the actual situation but I have seen it used as an excuse for a company not to offer the scheme, i.e. having to check up that employees are doing the requisite number of commutes.

From what I can tell it sounds like cobblers to me.


----------



## nappadang (7 Aug 2014)

A lad I work with has never (to my knowledge) used his C2W bike to commute.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Aug 2014)

The HMRC guidelines state:

_The tax exemption only applies when an employee mainly uses the cycle and cyclists' safety equipment for qualifying journeys. A qualifying journey for an employee means a journey, or part of a journey, 

 between his or her home and workplace, or 

 between one workplace and another, 

in connection with the performance of their duties of employment. So, for example, cycling to and from the station to get to work would qualify. In this case, 'mainly' means that more than 50% of use of the cycle and safety equipment must involve a qualifying journey .

_​That's not the same as '50% of his commutes must be by bike'. He only has to make sure that of the total use he makes of the bike, at least 50% of the journeys be qualifying ones. So, if he commutes on it even just one day a week and only rides it for fun one day of a weekend, he is complying with the terms.

I hope the difference is clear.

GC


----------



## winjim (7 Aug 2014)

I was under the impression that it's not 50% of commutes must be made by bike, but rather 50% of bike rides must be commutes. It was in my (NHS) scheme anyway.

Nobody checked, I just had to email them a photo at the end of the year to show I still had the bike and to assess market value.

ETA: Beaten to it by GC!


----------



## KneesUp (7 Aug 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The HMRC guidelines state:
> 
> _The tax exemption only applies when an employee mainly uses the cycle and cyclists' safety equipment for qualifying journeys. A qualifying journey for an employee means a journey, or part of a journey,
> 
> ...



One commute per week and one recreational ride per week would not be *more* than 50% qualifying. I would also suggest that 'number of journeys' is not a good measure here - if your commute is a mile and you do that twice a week and then do a century every Sunday, there is no way you could argue that more than half of the use is for commuting, for example.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> One commute per week and one recreational ride per week would not be *more* than 50% qualifying. I would also suggest that 'number of journeys' is not a good measure here - if your commute is a mile and you do that twice a week and then do a century every Sunday, there is no way you could argue that more than half of the use is for commuting, for example.



Assuming he rides home again having ridden to work, he's made two qualifying journeys.

The guidelines use 'number of journeys' as the measure, not distance covered.


GC


----------



## Milzy (7 Aug 2014)

Our company doesn't Police it. We go by car most of the time but do meet up on evenings & weekends for leisure rides.


----------



## winjim (7 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> One commute per week and one recreational ride per week would not be *more* than 50% qualifying. I would also suggest that 'number of journeys' is not a good measure here - if your commute is a mile and you do that twice a week and then do a century every Sunday, there is no way you could argue that more than half of the use is for commuting, for example.





glasgowcyclist said:


> Assuming he rides home again having ridden to work, he's made two qualifying journeys.
> 
> The guidelines use 'number of journeys' as the measure, not distance covered.
> 
> ...


And they include safety equipment, so don't use your lights or wear a helmet at weekends!


----------



## User33236 (7 Aug 2014)

My C2W scheme bike made a grand total of three return journeys to work in 12 months. The reason? I bought (not on C2W) a cyclocross bike that cost more the my C2W bike as the roads to and from work were sh!+ and the CX made more sense (as did disc brakes in the wet). 

The orginal bike got heavily used on the weekends. Feeling guilty I therefore spoke to our C2W coordinator who had no issue and was happy that I was riding to and from work on whatever bike I chose. 

I realise this situation was different but I was never at any point during the scheme asked to confirm my rides to work:leisure ride ratio not provide photos of the bike at the end of the year.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Aug 2014)

Realistically they would only be intersted if you were seen to be taking the pish on a wider scale. Perhaps a one man company with other tax irregularities.


----------



## confusedcyclist (7 Aug 2014)

How exactly would you prove you are using the bike to commute, sounds like they are trying to put him off to me. Maybe saving some paperwork?

Unless of course you are submitting car mileage?


----------



## DCLane (7 Aug 2014)

My first C2W bike wasn't used for commuting once. The current one is used about once a month.

However, I do ride by bike 5 days a week.

Not once have I been asked to 'prove' anything.


----------



## KneesUp (7 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> My first C2W bike wasn't used for commuting once. The current one is used about once a month.
> 
> However, I do ride by bike 5 days a week.
> 
> Not once have I been asked to 'prove' anything.


Do you not feel you are defrauding other taxpayers?


----------



## DCLane (7 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Do you not feel you are defrauding other taxpayers?


 
No. I commute 20+ miles by bike 5 days a week, which is probably more than 99% of other C2W users, many of whom never bother to ride to work at all.

It's a government system, which I'm making use of for Child Benefit purposes, since it reduces my overall income.

And the bikes _do_ get used; my first one my wife uses and the second is an MTB that I use in the winter. Straight after I got my first C2W bike I won a road bike from Sustrans - and used that for commuting instead.

My work simply asks me to confirm that I ride to work more than 50% of the time, which is true. They don't ask which bike I use.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (7 Aug 2014)

Hi all,

Smokey was asking for me as I don't visit here so often these days. No one has yet said we need to prove our usage, I'm only getting this from the guidelines. 

I'm the branch manager so if anyone is asked to police usage it would be me filling in the forms but because of my position I wouldn't want to be proved a fibber for the sake of a few hundred quid!

If all the above is true then it sounds a winner, higher rate taxpayers seem to win a but more though.

I don't claim mileage as my company car is mostly private use so there isn't any damaging evidence against that but as I mainly ride twice a month these days it would mean going to work twice a month (2 rides there and two rides home) to genuinely qualify as more than 50%.

I'm up for that as a way of doing my bit for my health and the planet!

Still not sure which bike? Not going over the £1k Mark and fancied the cube peloton but had Planet X recommended...any others?


----------



## KneesUp (7 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> No. I commute 20+ miles by bike 5 days a week, which is probably more than 99% of other C2W users, many of whom never bother to ride to work at all.
> 
> It's a government system, which I'm making use of for Child Benefit purposes, since it reduces my overall income.
> 
> And the bikes _do_ get used; my first one my wife uses and the second is an MTB that I use in the winter. Straight after I got my first C2W bike I won a road bike from Sustrans - and used that for commuting instead.



So you are using a system to buy a commuting bike at a reduced price - paid for my taxpayers - so that you can

a) buy bikes you don't commute on - or need, presumably, since you have several
b) reduce your take home pay in order to get more child benefit

I can see that winning a bike just after you've bought one might mean you don't use it as much, but it doesn't explain the need for the next one.

It sounds like blatant abuse of the system to me - you're not using the subsidised bikes as intended, and you're buying more bikes to boost your child benefit.


----------



## DCLane (7 Aug 2014)

@KneesUp - you might think that, but I'm going to be using the current C2W MTB over 2 winters whilst it's in the 18-month C2W period. It'll be used then.

Just because I don't use it in the summer should I not sign for a C2W bike? Seriously?

And yes, it's to reduce take home pay. That's the government's taxation rules. I pay my taxes and, like most people, will use methods to reduce them. Have you an ISA? Do you claim for professional memberships, etc? Isn't that the same as you're doing that to reduce your overall level of taxation? It's not "blatant abuse" at all.


----------



## fossyant (7 Aug 2014)

Without reading the thread, he has a company car already. The IR are not thick.
It's a crap scheme anyway, and I was in at the front end, but lost loads as I did business miles I could not claim. Best bet is interest free from bike shop.


----------



## fossyant (7 Aug 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Smokey was asking for me as I don't visit here so often these days. No one has yet said we need to prove our usage, I'm only getting this from the guidelines.
> 
> ...



All I will say, the scheme is massively abused. Yours seems OK compared to folk I know have done it. For me it's been my 100% commuter for 6 years....


----------



## KneesUp (7 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> @KneesUp - you might think that, but I'm going to be using the current C2W MTB over 2 winters whilst it's in the 18-month C2W period. It'll be used then.
> 
> Just because I don't use it in the summer should I not sign for a C2W bike? Seriously?
> 
> And yes, it's to reduce take home pay. That's the government's taxation rules. I pay my taxes and, like most people, will use methods to reduce them. Have you an ISA? Do you claim for professional memberships, etc? Isn't that the same as you're doing that to reduce your overall level of taxation? It's not "blatant abuse" at all.



I don't have an ISA or claim for any professional memberships, no. If I had, would that make your imaginative interpretation of the C2W scheme more valid?

I don't think the scheme was designed for people to buy new bikes over and over again - particularly ones they don't use, or are unsuitable for year-round commuting - in order to get more money from the government in benefits - although I accept that it's not a well designed scheme. That's not the spirit of it at all.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (8 Aug 2014)

I won't abuse it but I can't ride 15 days out of 30 but I can stick to the more than 50% rule.

I have a company car yes but I ride my motorbike sometime also and as I don't claim business mileage for more than two or three journeys per month and intend to do some commuting I think I can have a clear conscious. 

As to people lowering take home pay to get benefits, one has to know the whole story, so many people are paid less than they are worth, nurses, firemen, some policemen (except traffic cops...) and so many people are paid more than they are worth (me sometimes...) so it isn't an easy judgement to comment on.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> I won't abuse it but I can't ride 15 days out of 30 but I can stick to the more than 50% rule.
> 
> I have a company car yes but I ride my motorbike sometime also and as I don't claim business mileage for more than two or three journeys per month and intend to do some commuting I think I can have a clear conscious.
> 
> As to people lowering take home pay to get benefits, one has to know the whole story, so many people are paid less than they are worth, nurses, firemen, some policemen (except traffic cops...) and so many people are paid more than they are worth (me sometimes...) so it isn't an easy judgement to comment on.


If someone is buying a new (and presumably expensive) bike every year, I'm guessing they aren't exactly on the bread line ...


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (8 Aug 2014)

Maybe not but without the full facts I'm not making a judgement as I can think of loads of examples where people find a way of making terrible lives bearable.

Not saying that is or isn't the case but still.

And this is why I don't visit often! Lol!


----------



## DCLane (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> If someone is buying a new (and presumably expensive) bike every year, I'm guessing they aren't exactly on the bread line ...


 
That depends; I don't drink alcohol, don't smoke and don't buy expensive designer stuff. My car isn't used much so the only real spending I have is on bikes/ cycle kit. My C2W bikes haven't been 'expensive' - £500 and £850 fyi - so not at the £1000 C2W limit.

The amount I earn / don't earn is irrelevant here. Also, just because you don't agree with people replacing their C2W bike doesn't mean they can't; my commuting miles has killed a couple of bikes entirely as they've been bought for £50-100 and used frequently in all weathers. I'm sure many commuters buy their bike on C2W and use it in the knowledge that they can replace it in a year/18 months.

If you wish to challenge government policy, be my guest - but Society, Culture and Politics is this way.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> If you wish to challenge government policy, be my guest - but Society, Culture and Politics is this way.



I was challenging your admission of using the Cycle to Work Scheme to buy bikes which you do not use to cycle to work.


----------



## DCLane (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> I was challenging your admission of using the Cycle to Work Scheme to buy bikes which you do not use to cycle to work.


 
OK - 1 not used as I won a bike almost straight after, the other used in winter only.

To me, and probably most others, that's not an issue. At least I'm riding to work; see my signature.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> OK - 1 not used as I won a bike almost straight after, the other used in winter only.
> 
> To me, and probably most others, that's not an issue. At least I'm riding to work; see my signature.


And what about the one you use "once a month" is that a third one?


----------



## DCLane (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> And what about the one you use "once a month" is that a third one?


 
Nope. 2 only; that's the MTB, which gets used in winter as well. I'm not made of money 

And yes, at the end of the current 18-month C2W there'll be another one. This'll probably be a road bike or 'cross bike - for commuting this time.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> Nope. 2 only; that's the MTB, which gets used in winter as well. I'm not made of money
> 
> And yes, at the end of the current 18-month C2W there'll be another one. This'll probably be a road bike or 'cross bike - for commuting this time.


Three new bikes in 4.5 years, all to keep the tax credits up. Go you. Well done.


----------



## AndyRM (8 Aug 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> I won't abuse it but I can't ride 15 days out of 30 but I can stick to the more than 50% rule.
> 
> I have a company car yes but I ride my motorbike sometime also and as I don't claim business mileage for more than two or three journeys per month and intend to do some commuting I think I can have a clear conscious.
> 
> As to people lowering take home pay to get benefits, one has to know the whole story, so many people are paid less than they are worth, nurses, firemen, some policemen (except traffic cops...) and so many people are paid more than they are worth (me sometimes...) so it isn't an easy judgement to comment on.



I'd really not worry about it too much. Get the bike, ride it to work as often as you can and commute by alternative means when you have to. Pretty simple really.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (8 Aug 2014)

AndyRM said:


> I'd really not worry about it too much. Get the bike, ride it to work as often as you can and commute by alternative means when you have to. Pretty simple really.



Yup, you're over thinking it, although I can see why if you are going to administer it to some degree. Nobody on the administration side cares anywhere near as much as @KneesUp seems to. I have two bikes on the scheme and nobody has asked me to prove anything. I have a friend who has bought his wife's road bike and an OnOne fat bike through it in consecutive years, no questions asked and neither have seen any commuting miles at all (one's a fat bike FFS). The only people who ever seem to care are the middle manager types within the individual organisations and I guess that's backside covering. Really the scheme just seems to care about getting bikes in to ownership and little else, it's probably good for the economy or something.

The only thing that did change is the end of scheme pay off, 5+ years ago (or so, haven't checked dates) you'd have got away with just handing over a tenner and calling it done (know someone who did that on a very expensive electric assist bike) now it's properly 10% of original value (again, or whatever figure, haven't checked).

I guess you have to be comfortable in yourself that you aren't going to get a big surprise half way through, but it doesn't look like anything is going to change soon.


----------



## Soltydog (8 Aug 2014)

@KneesUp Think you'll find there are plenty more people who are using the scheme to avoid tax who don't actually need another bike. I've bought a few through the scheme & have no problem with it. I'm sure there's much bigger tax avoidance going on in the world that people dont bat an eyelid at 
If someone was using the scheme to avoid tax/gain tax credits & not using the/or any other bike at all you gripe might be more valid


----------



## Soltydog (8 Aug 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> The only thing that did change is the end of scheme pay off, 5+ years ago (or so, haven't checked dates) you'd have got away with just handing over a tenner and calling it done (know someone who did that on a very expensive electric assist bike) now it's properly 10% of original value (again, or whatever figure, haven't checked).
> 
> I guess you have to be comfortable in yourself that you aren't going to get a big surprise half way through, but it doesn't look like anything is going to change soon.



My first bike through scheme about 7 years ago I never had to make a final payment, so I guess that technically my employer still owns that bike 
Subsequent schemes have resulted in a final payment of approx 1 months payment. Our previous schemes were over 18 months, but the latest one is only over 12 months which under the hmrc guidance figures will mean a higher final value, so wasnt too sure about the scheme, but with the higher tax threshold being lowered I dont need much overtime &/or payrise to take me over it, so I'll be saving 40% tax this time which even with a high final value figure makes it worthwhile to me


----------



## vickster (8 Aug 2014)

Soltydog said:


> My first bike through scheme about 7 years ago I never had to make a final payment, so I guess that technically my employer still owns that bike
> Subsequent schemes have resulted in a final payment of approx 1 months payment. Our previous schemes were over 18 months, but the latest one is only over 12 months which under the hmrc guidance figures will mean a higher final value, so wasnt too sure about the scheme, but with the higher tax threshold being lowered I dont need much overtime &/or payrise to take me over it, so I'll be saving 40% tax this time which even with a high final value figure makes it worthwhile to me



The scheme changed, 7 years ago the final payment thing wasn't so clear, it may be that the company simply absorbed or wrote it off. You'd need to read the terms of the scheme at that point


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

Soltydog said:


> @KneesUp Think you'll find there are plenty more people who are using the scheme to avoid tax who don't actually need another bike. I've bought a few through the scheme & have no problem with it. I'm sure there's much bigger tax avoidance going on in the world that people dont bat an eyelid at
> If someone was using the scheme to avoid tax/gain tax credits & not using the/or any other bike at all you gripe might be more valid


I don't make a moral distinction between what you and @DCLane are doing and my MP fiddling his expenses. OK so the sums were bigger with my MP, but the underlying principle of "well it doesn't specifically say I can't fill my boots, so I will" is the same.

I asked about an equivalent of the C2W scheme for the self-employed in 2012, and got 'advice' such as "man up and buy a bike" It's interesting that a self-employed person (who in 2011 earned less than the minimum wage due to market conditions, not clever accounting) gets advice like that when looking to buy one bike to replace a 30 year old one, but apparently most people seem happy for employed people to get bike after bike subsidised by the tax payer.


----------



## DCLane (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> I don't make a moral distinction between what you and @DCLane are doing and my MP fiddling his expenses. OK so the sums were bigger with my MP, but the underlying principle of "well it doesn't specifically say I can't fill my boots, so I will" is the same.


 
Hang on. A MP fiddling their expenses is breaking the rules. Both @Soltydog and I are using the government's own taxation system.


----------



## JoeyB (8 Aug 2014)

My accountant told me that the employee / employer will never be asked for any proof.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> Hang on. A MP fiddling their expenses is breaking the rules. Both @Soltydog and I are using the government's own taxation system.



Well no. My MP bought a flat in London and we paid the mortgage. Then he sold it 20 years later and kept the substantial capital gains for himself. That was entirely within the rules. Loads of them did it.

It was never against the rules - but I think most people find it morally dubious.


----------



## CopperBrompton (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> I don't make a moral distinction between what you and @DCLane are doing and my MP fiddling his expenses.


The two are not equivalent. What DCL is doing is legally exploiting a tax avoidance scheme. If he were to complain at Philip Green or Vodafone doing the same thing, then you could accuse him of hypocrisy, but you can't equate tax avoidance with fraud.


----------



## PK99 (8 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> @KneesUp - you might think that, but I'm going to be using the current C2W MTB over 2 winters whilst it's in the 18-month C2W period. It'll be used then.
> 
> Just because I don't use it in the summer should I not sign for a C2W bike? Seriously?
> 
> And yes, it's to reduce take home pay. *That's the government's taxation rules*. I pay my taxes and, like most people, will use methods to reduce them. Have you an ISA? Do you claim for professional memberships, etc? Isn't that the same as you're doing that to reduce your overall level of taxation? It's not "blatant abuse" at all.



You are ok then that some companies and individuals us the governments taxation rules to reduce their overall level of taxation?


----------



## SquareDaff (8 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> Hang on. A MP fiddling their expenses is breaking the rules. Both @Soltydog and I are using the government's own taxation system.


Give it up DC - the idiot will argue black is blue next. What you're doing is within the rules so stuff what anyone else thinks. If they're really that bothered get them to put some effort in and get the rules changed!


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

Trikeman said:


> The two are not equivalent. What DCL is doing is legally exploiting a tax avoidance scheme. If he were to complain at Philip Green or Vodafone doing the same thing, then you could accuse him of hypocrisy, but you can't equate tax avoidance with fraud.


I'm equating taking as much as possible from the taxpayer even when there is no need with, er, taking as much from the taxpayer as possible when there is no need.

It's the same thing.

My MP spending a fortune on "essential" furniture that he then kept - within the rules
My MP getting his morgage paid for 20 years and then keeping the half a million in capital gains - within the rules
Buying bike after bike subsidised by the taaxpayer - within the rules

All are morally questionable though.


----------



## BSRU (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Buying bike after bike subsidised by the taaxpayer - within the rules
> 
> All are morally questionable though.


Private car drivers are subsidised by all tax payers, by over £600 per year.


----------



## PK99 (8 Aug 2014)

Trikeman said:


> The two are not equivalent. What DCL is doing is legally exploiting a tax avoidance scheme. If he were to complain at Philip Green or Vodafone doing the same thing, then you could accuse him of hypocrisy, but you can't equate tax avoidance with fraud.



The revenue make a distinction:

*Tax Evasion* = deliberate breaking of the law = illegal

*Tax Avoidance* = deliberate manipulation of rules outside the design intent = legal but immoral

*Tax planning* = use of tax rules for the purposes they were designed for.

Isas/pensions/capital allowances for a business etc/making films and employing real people to to real jobs = Planning

Buying multiple bikes on the C2W scheme and not using them for commuting/film investment schemes with the sole purpose of creating tax losses = Avoidance


----------



## PK99 (8 Aug 2014)

BSRU said:


> Private car drivers are subsidised by all tax payers, by over £600 per year.



"Motoring-related taxes for fiscal year 2011/12, including fuel duties and VED, are estimated that will amount to more than GB£38 billion, representing almost 7% of total UK taxation."


----------



## BSRU (8 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> "Motoring-related taxes for fiscal year 2011/12, including fuel duties and VED, are estimated that will amount to more than GB£38 billion, representing almost 7% of total UK taxation."


And it's still not enough to cover the total cost.


----------



## PK99 (8 Aug 2014)

SquareDaff said:


> Give it up DC - the idiot will argue black is blue next. *What you're doing is within the rules so stuff what anyone else thinks*. If they're really that bothered get them to put some effort in and get the rules changed!



What Philip Green does. What Starbucks does. What Amazon does are all within the rules.


----------



## CopperBrompton (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> I'm equating taking as much as possible from the taxpayer even when there is no need with, er, taking as much from the taxpayer as possible when there is no need.


No, you said "fiddling his expenses" which is fraud. The things you now describe are legal, just as DCL's use of a tax avoidance scheme to obtain more benefit is legal.

As I say, you can criticise the morality if you wish, but you can't equate tax avoidance with criminal behaviour.


----------



## CopperBrompton (8 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> Buying multiple bikes on the C2W scheme and not using them for commuting/film investment schemes with the sole purpose of creating tax losses = Avoidance


Agreed, and I don't see DCL denying this.


----------



## SquareDaff (8 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> What Philip Green does. What Starbucks does. What Amazon does are all within the rules.


Not biting - but if it bothers *you* that much then follow the 2nd part of that sentence (i.e. the bit you didn't highlight)


----------



## PK99 (8 Aug 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Agreed, and I don't see DCL denying this.



but he does deny that the behaviour is unethical.


----------



## JoeyB (8 Aug 2014)

I think it comes down to individual conscience....so no point trying to split hairs on that.


----------



## jarlrmai (8 Aug 2014)

At my last job there were at least 3 people who had cycle to work bikes gathering dust in their garages, while they drove 10 miles to work.


----------



## vickster (8 Aug 2014)

Aren't people who use the cycle to work schemes actually taxpayers too? Given they are in work and presumably paying tax? I think knees up is a little bitter that c2w doesn't apply to him, but then I don't think he commutes to a place of work (could be wrong). I am sure there are taxation rules / accounting guidelines for the self employed that are beneficial versus paye. I have friends who are self employed, similar salary to me, who seem to pay far less tax!


----------



## PK99 (8 Aug 2014)

JoeyB said:


> I think it comes down to individual conscience....so no point trying to split hairs on that.



The objective of the C2W scheme is to encourage cycle commuting, and make it easier for people to afford to buy a bike for commuting.

Using the scheme multiple times to subsidise a hobby is unethical.


----------



## Paul99 (8 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> The objective of the C2W scheme is to encourage cycle commuting, and make it easier for people to afford to buy a bike for commuting.
> 
> *Using the scheme multiple times to subsidise a hobby is unethical.*


 
I have had a bike for the last 2 years on C2W. 1st was a CX, 2nd a 29er. CX is used spring, summer, autumn. 29er in the winter. I don't think this is unethical.

I wasn't going to get another bike on the scheme in October. Think I might now.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (8 Aug 2014)

vickster said:


> Aren't people who use the cycle to work schemes actually taxpayers too? Given they are in work and presumably paying tax? I think knees up is a little bitter that c2w doesn't apply to him, but then I don't think he commutes to a place of work (could be wrong). I am sure there are taxation rules / accounting guidelines for the self employed that are beneficial versus paye. I have friends who are self employed, similar salary to me, who seem to pay far less tax!


I'd have thought a decent accountant would have got @KneesUp a way of claiming back costs on a bike that he could justify as a work expense. I have a friend whose accountant claims back his breakfasts every morning. There are lots of things you can do if you're self employed, a good accountant comfortably pays for themselves on that front.


----------



## winjim (8 Aug 2014)

Take what you can. Eat off the Man.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (8 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> Using the scheme multiple times to subsidise a hobby is unethical.



I suggest for your ethics you stick at one then. Mine, much like @Paul99 were perfectly comfortable with me owning 2. They do different commuting jobs. I do more cycle commuting miles because I own both. Personally, I wouldn't buy a bike I wasn't intending to commute at all and when we bought my wife a bike we did it straight from the shop, but then that's my choice. I've friends who are comfortable with doing stuff like that, that's theirs. I'm pretty sure none of us are having restless nights because of our own choices.


----------



## vickster (8 Aug 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I'd have thought a decent accountant would have got @KneesUp a way of claiming back costs on a bike that he could justify as a work expense. I have a friend whose accountant claims back his breakfasts every morning. There are lots of things you can do if you're self employed, a good accountant comfortably pays for themselves on that front.


Precisely


----------



## Soltydog (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> I don't make a moral distinction between what you and @DCLane are doing and my MP fiddling his expenses. OK so the sums were bigger with my MP, but the underlying principle of "well it doesn't specifically say I can't fill my boots, so I will" is the same.


Totally different to MPs fiddling expenses! Claiming for a mortgage that was already paid off etc no comparison at all 
To avoid going into the higher tax bracket this year I had 2 options, C2W scheme, or increase pension contributions. If I increase my pension contributions to avoid paying higher rate of tax is that morally wrong too??
I have a clear conscience using the scheme. My new bike used 7 times, approx 240 miles, 2 leisure rides 80 miles & 5 commutes at 160 miles, well within the scheme requirements.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

vickster said:


> Aren't people who use the cycle to work schemes actually taxpayers too? I think knees up is a little bitter that c2w doesn't apply to him, but then I don't think he commutes to a place of work (could be wrong).



You are wrong. And I am a taxpayer too.
You are right that I think it is unfair that the c2w scheme doesn't apply to the self-employed though. I only want one subsidised bike though


----------



## smokeysmoo (8 Aug 2014)

Thanks for the replies. NTJK has checked in to this thread a couple of pages ago, (and straight back out it seems ), so he's got the info he needs now.

Thanks again.

Mods, I'm done with this thread now so feel free to close it if you wish, thanks.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I'd have thought a decent accountant would have got @KneesUp a way of claiming back costs on a bike that he could justify as a work expense. I have a friend whose accountant claims back his breakfasts every morning. There are lots of things you can do if you're self employed, a good accountant comfortably pays for themselves on that front.



You'd be wrong too. I commute to one fixed place - so I can't claim mileage. I'd use it for myself too, so it can't be a business expense -and given that when I do travel I either go about half a mile (post office) or 200 miles (London) I can't claim it as a legitimate expense as a bike is not suitable for either journey. I've looked in to it. I could lie about it and get away with it, of course ...


----------



## CopperBrompton (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> You are right that I think it is unfair that the c2w scheme doesn't apply to the self-employed though. I only want one subsidised bike though


Assuming you earn enough to be in the 40% tax bracket, it will be financially advantageous to create a one-person Limited company - and then the company can buy a bike under a similar scheme to C2W but where the company retains ownership of the bike. Ask your accountant about it.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

Soltydog said:


> Totally different to MPs fiddling expenses! Claiming for a mortgage that was already paid off etc no comparison at all
> To avoid going into the higher tax bracket this year I had 2 options, C2W scheme, or increase pension contributions. If I increase my pension contributions to avoid paying higher rate of tax is that morally wrong too??
> I have a clear conscience using the scheme. My new bike used 7 times, approx 240 miles, 2 leisure rides 80 miles & 5 commutes at 160 miles, well within the scheme requirements.


No, my MP didn't claim for a mortgage that was paid off.

He bought a flat in 1980-odd, in London, for about £40k I think. We paid the mortgage for 20 years. He sold in 2012 for £500,000. And kept the money. Perfectly within the rules, but not at all in the _spirit_ of the rules. Morally suspect. But not illegal.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Assuming you earn enough to be in the 40% tax bracket,.



You're wrong too, sadly.


----------



## vickster (8 Aug 2014)

I am wrong that people who use the C2W scheme are taxpayers...really, how so?


----------



## JoeyB (8 Aug 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Assuming you earn enough to be in the 40% tax bracket, it will be financial advantageous to create a one-person Limited company - and then the company can buy a bike under a similar scheme to C2W but where the company retains ownership of the bike. Ask your accountant about it.



Ah that must be what my accountant was talking about. I assumed it was all one scheme but I guess there are more options?


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

vickster said:


> I am wrong that people who use the C2W scheme are taxpayers...really, how so?


No, you were wrong in thinking I don't commute. Commuting to a single place of work doesn't count as an expense for self-assesment tax regardless, though.


----------



## dexter101 (8 Aug 2014)

The C2W scheme all seems a bit weird any way really as what about the people who decide to use it, get a bike and then get fed up (or put off) by the journey and use a different method of transport? surely you cant give the bike back to your company as they aren't going to want a second hand bike clogging the offices up are they? 

Also if the scheme allows you to purchase a bike every 18 months then there's no way of complaining about people using it. it would be the same as saying to people who claim benefits (employed or not) to only claim what they "need". Theres no way for anyone else to judge what that person needs. 

I think in the bigger picture of things, the more people exploiting the system the more people with good quality bikes, who may use it to commute or simply for recreation, the better everyones health, the less cars there will be on the road and less pollution etc etc

If people do it every 18 months the more high quality second hand bikes there will be on the market! result for people like me who cant even think about spending £200+ on a bike as it stands!


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

dexter101 said:


> The C2W scheme all seems a bit weird any way really as what about the people who decide to use it, get a bike and then get fed up (or put off) by the journey and use a different method of transport? surely you cant give the bike back to your company as they aren't going to want a second hand bike clogging the offices up are they?
> 
> Also if the scheme allows you to purchase a bike every 18 months then there's no way of complaining about people using it. it would be the same as saying to people who claim benefits (employed or not) to only claim what they "need". Theres no way for anyone else to judge what that person needs.
> 
> ...


On the other hand, I think there would be fewer bikes that just happen to be £1,000 or thereabouts if more people were using their own money to buy them. But maybe not.


----------



## jarlrmai (8 Aug 2014)

I think thats the philosophy behind it, the savings of the health benefits of those that do commute outweigh those that abuse it a bit or never ride the bike they buy.

I just wish they'd apply the same logic to road and cycle provisioning, then we might see more of those C2W bikes getting used.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Aug 2014)

Wow, must be a hell of a view from that high horse.

Not seen as much tripe posted here for a while.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

400bhp said:


> Wow, must be a hell of a view from that high horse.
> 
> Not seen as much tripe posted here for a while.


I presume you mean me? Which bits are "tripe"?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (8 Aug 2014)

dexter101 said:


> The C2W scheme all seems a bit weird any way really as what about the people who decide to use it, get a bike and then get fed up (or put off) by the journey and use a different method of transport? surely you cant give the bike back to your company as they aren't going to want a second hand bike clogging the offices up are they?


You take out a contract for a year during which you agree to hire the bike. Our place, like a lot of organisations, sub-contracts out so you are actually buying from a third party that just does C2W although your work still forks up some of the money. If after 12 months you are done, you can just give the bike back and that's it. No more costs, nothing to show for it but a healthier 12 months commute if you've used the bike (or 12 payments missing from your pay packet if you haven't.). The company you hired it from then has to decide what to do with it, I presume they auction off the tiny number they get given back.

You also get two other options (with the sub-contractor anyway) you can either buy the bike back there and then (costs around 20% of the asking price I think) or you can rent it from them for another three years at around the cost of one more monthly payment and then it gets written off at the end. This is all to 'get around' the final cost bit with the tax office, it's easy for them to write off a 4 year old bike, harder a 1 year old one. The scheme I'm with is very insistent that the 3 year option is the one to go for. They don't quite say 'don't choose this, are you insane?' but it's pretty close.

I'd imagine most people who think they are going to use it but then don't just buy the bike at the end and sell it on to recoup money. Of course they probably also went for the cheaper sub £350 option in the first place so weren't particularly out of pocket...


----------



## DCLane (8 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> but he does deny that the behaviour is unethical.


 
Possibly unethical - but I commute by bike 5 days a week, including today.

Except today I used the 1986 Raleigh Team that I bought for £40 because it's going to rain heavily.

So maybe I should've left it at home and brought the MTB / Globe Daily 2 in instead just to be 'ethical'. Pah!


----------



## dexter101 (8 Aug 2014)

@w00hoo_kent Thanks for clarifying, that makes much more sense!


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> So maybe I should've left it at home and brought the MTB / Globe Daily 2 in instead just to be 'ethical'. Pah!



If you wanted a bike that isn't suitable for commuting, you shouldn't have used a tax-payer subsidised scheme for people to buy commuting bikes to buy it. That would have been the ethical thing to do.


----------



## mcshroom (8 Aug 2014)

Someone has a chip on his shoulder


----------



## DCLane (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> If you wanted a bike that isn't suitable for commuting, you shouldn't have used a tax-payer subsidised scheme for people to buy commuting bikes to buy it. That would have been the ethical thing to do.


 
Not true - ALL my bikes are suitable for commuting, from this which was my first C2W purchase in 2012;







through this, which I re-built this Spring from a £10 Viking MTB and an old frame, so not C2W. It's my 'happy to dump anywhere' bike:






and this, which I bought the frame from here and built in April/May and is my current daily 'commuter', oh - and isn't C2W scheme:






to this, which wasn't a C2W purchase:






In fact, all bar the first have been used to do so! *As long as it has wheels then I'll ride it*.

Today's is this, which cost me a total of £120 including the re-build and not a C2W purchase - and I worked out last week I'd done 14 commutes on this one = £20 up @ £10 a day saved;






And to add the final one; my 'winter' bike - the C2W MTB I bought last year on an 18-month C2W agreement:






@KneesUp - tbh if you've a problem with the fact I use a range of bikes to commute to work and/or that I earn enough to be able to use C2W to help Child Benefit payments, you need to deal with it. It's the government system - and I pay about £1500 per month in direct taxation, let alone all the indirect taxation. Saving about £400 over 18 months, which is what you're moaning over, is small change by comparison.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Aug 2014)

D


DCLane said:


> Not true - ALL my bikes are suitable for commuting, from this which was my first C2W purchase in 2012;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dont rise to it mate.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (8 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> And to add the final one; my 'winter' bike - the C2W MTB I bought last year on an 18-month C2W agreement:


That's pretty, I'm considering an MTB for a mix of trail riding and winter commuting. Maybe I'll hold off getting a secondhand one and go that direction instead. How is it to ride?


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

400bhp said:


> D
> 
> Dont rise to it mate.


Or, in other words, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.


----------



## DCLane (8 Aug 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> That's pretty, I'm considering an MTB for a mix of trail riding and winter commuting. Maybe I'll hold off getting a secondhand one and go that direction instead. How is it to ride?


 
It's a Whyte 805 650b, which I've found is fine on the flat and downhill but is slower uphill than a standard 26" wheel MTB.

It rides well; I've done about 500 miles on it and found it be a compliant ride.

My only gripes are that the matt white paint marks too easily and the disc brakes squeal too much for my liking.


----------



## dexter101 (8 Aug 2014)

Lovely selection of bikes there @DCLane!


----------



## MisterStan (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Or, in other words, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.


Would you like salt and vinegar to go with your chip? You are talking some carp today.


----------



## DCLane (8 Aug 2014)

dexter101 said:


> Lovely selection of bikes there @DCLane!


 
Thanks. I didn't include the one that isn't that nice at the moment, which is my Benotto Paris-Roubaix 'project':






It _does_ now have a back wheel  but still has a stuck seatpost and I've given up with it tbh. I can see why the previous owner was going to set fire to it so the Benotto's being left in storage until September - 3 weeks away from the carbon-bonded-to-steel Italian and I'll probably want to tackle it again. Or burn it


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

MisterStan said:


> Would you like salt and vinegar to go with your chip? You are talking some carp today.


Nothing I have said is incorrect.


----------



## MisterStan (8 Aug 2014)

DCLane said:


> Thanks. I didn't include the one that isn't that nice at the moment, which is my Benotto Paris-Roubaix 'project':
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chain's a bit slack!


----------



## DCLane (8 Aug 2014)

MisterStan said:


> Chain's a bit slack!


 
Blame the previous owner; a stoned prog rock musician. It's now sorted


----------



## dexter101 (8 Aug 2014)

definitely looks like a 'unique' ride, could probably decend if your balance is good.... long old reach on those handle bars, maybe you could use C2W scheme to get some new parts....


----------



## Big Nick (8 Aug 2014)

Is someone going to keep score each day at his work of which days he's come by bike?

I actually do commute to work on my c2w bike at the moment but come the crappy weather/salty roads I'll revert back to my rusty...sorry trusty old mtb instead 

The scheme is massively abused but that's not helped by the fact there's no laid down checking procedure in the terms and conditions. If I was your mate I'd risk it as as long as he can show he does use it for work when he can I can't see an issue.


----------



## PK99 (8 Aug 2014)

Big Nick said:


> I
> 
> *The scheme is massively abused but that's not helped by the fact there's no laid down checking procedure in the terms and conditions. If I was your mate I'd risk it* as as long as he can show he does use it for work when he can I can't see an issue.



Precisely the logic used by the promoters of film investment tax avoidance schemes to footballers and comedians.... do I take it you are ok with that too?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (8 Aug 2014)

Big Nick said:


> I actually do commute to work on my c2w bike at the moment but come the crappy weather/salty roads I'll revert back to my rusty...sorry trusty old mtb instead.


I do the same, although both my 'main' bikes being c2w ones helps that :-) I'm considering getting a (t)rusty MTB for the bad winter bits to help protect my/there c2w investment, maybe I should ask for brownie points for that :-)


----------



## Big Nick (8 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> Precisely the logic used by the promoters of film investment tax avoidance schemes to footballers and comedians.... do I take it you are ok with that too?


Absolutely

I don't know anyone who likes paying tax and who wouldn't like to pay less if 'legally' they could

Easy for people on here to take the moral high ground when no one actually knows if they practice what they are so ready to preach


----------



## CopperBrompton (8 Aug 2014)

JoeyB said:


> Ah that must be what my accountant was talking about. I assumed it was all one scheme but I guess there are more options?


Yes, it's slightly different, in that the company owns the bike throughout and there is no rental element. However, HMRC says bikes depreciate by 20% per year, so the company can sell the bike to you for a quid after five years.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Yes, it's slightly different, in that the company owns the bike throughout and there is no rental element. However, HMRC says bikes depreciate by 20% per year, so the company can sell the bike to you for a quid after five years.


Only if it was worth £2.44 to start with.

year 1 - £2.44
year 2 (£2.44-20%) = £1.93
year 3 (£1.93-20%) = £1.56
year 4 (£1.56-20%) = £1.25
year 5 (£!.25 - 20%) = £1


----------



## User33236 (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Only if it was worth £2.44 to start with.
> 
> year 1 - £2.44
> year 2 (£2.44-20%) = £1.93
> ...


When capital purchases get written down over a period of time (in this instance 5 years) the value of the item depreciates by 20% of the initial purchase price per annum and not in the manner you describe. A nominal fee, say £1, then transfers legal title to a new owner after that time. The HRC prescribes write down on second hand bikes and these can be found on their site.


----------



## CopperCyclist (8 Aug 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The HMRC guidelines state:
> 
> _The tax exemption only applies when an employee mainly uses the cycle and cyclists' safety equipment for qualifying journeys. A qualifying journey for an employee means a journey, or part of a journey,
> 
> ...



Ha, love it! So technically for a while, I was commuting everyday (72 miles in six days) but doing a couple of 40 milers on two out of four of my rest days (80 miles) and thus breaking the rules =0 I never knew... 

What about if I commute an extended distance in - I. E. 20 miles instead of 6? Is that a commute or leisure, or both! 

Bloody hell, can open, worms everywhere I tell you. Glad my scheme finished without issue ages ago!


----------



## NorvernRob (8 Aug 2014)

Half the shops don't even care, a guy I work with used his CTW voucher to buy his kid a bike for Christmas. Also, many shops will let you spend as much as you want over and above the value of the voucher and fudge the paperwork, even though the schemes say that isn't allowed.

Personally I think any scheme that gets people on a bike (even if it's just at weekends and they never commute on it) is a good thing. No it's not supposed to be for that, but who really cares.


----------



## CopperBrompton (8 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Only if it was worth £2.44 to start with.


I'm assuming that was for comic effect and not because you actually misunderstood that badly ...

It works as SG describes, so after five years HMRC says it is worth nothing.


----------



## CopperBrompton (8 Aug 2014)

User said:


> The suggested write down is more generous than that.


I think you're talking about the C2W scheme there, not the company purchase scheme, which is different.


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (8 Aug 2014)

smokeysmoo said:


> I've searched but there's a gazzillion threads and life's too short TBH
> 
> I'm asking for a friend who's employer has just started the C2W scheme.
> 
> ...



Just show them your muscly thighs!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Aug 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> Ha, love it! So technically for a while, I was commuting everyday (72 miles in six days) but doing a couple of 40 milers on two out of four of my rest days (80 miles) and thus breaking the rules =0 I never knew...
> 
> What about if I commute an extended distance in - I. E. 20 miles instead of 6? Is that a commute or leisure, or both!
> 
> Bloody hell, can open, worms everywhere I tell you. Glad my scheme finished without issue ages ago!



You weren't breaking any rules, it's not the distance travelled that counts it's the number of qualifying _journeys_ as a percentage of the total number of journeys.


GC


----------



## KneesUp (8 Aug 2014)

Trikeman said:


> I'm assuming that was for comic effect and not because you actually misunderstood that badly ...
> 
> It works as SG describes, so after five years HMRC says it is worth nothing.


It was a genuine mistake - I've learned something. I didn't know you could straight-line depreciate a bike - I've not looked in to it because there is no way I can qualify for any sort of tax-benefit for buying one, so I didn't look any further. (And yes, I do commute by bike)


----------



## Paul99 (11 Aug 2014)

KneesUp said:


> It was a genuine mistake - I've learned something. I didn't know you could straight-line depreciate a bike - I've not looked in to it because there is no way I can qualify for any sort of tax-benefit for buying one, so I didn't look any further. (And yes, I do commute by bike)


Do you do any paperwork etc at home? = Workplace 1
Do you work at your shop? = Workplace 2
Do you need transport between the two places when your private car is not available? Yes?

I can't see any reason that the business could not buy a bike for business use.


----------



## winjim (11 Aug 2014)

OK, this'll raise some hackles...

I have heard of someone who buys bikes on C2W, never rides them, and then after a year sells them on in mint condition!


----------



## PK99 (11 Aug 2014)

winjim said:


> OK, this'll raise some hackles...
> 
> I have heard of someone who buys bikes on C2W, never rides them, and then after a year sells them on in mint condition!



we have been discussing Avoidance - what you describe is Evasion pure and simple - shop him to the tax fraud hot line?


----------



## glenn forger (11 Aug 2014)

winjim said:


> OK, this'll raise some hackles...
> 
> I have heard of someone who buys bikes on C2W, never rides them, and then after a year sells them on in mint condition!



Get us a Dawes Super Galaxy?


----------



## .stu (11 Aug 2014)

@DCLane you are Jimmy Carr and I claim my five pounds


----------



## Peteaud (11 Aug 2014)

winjim said:


> OK, this'll raise some hackles...
> 
> I have heard of someone who buys bikes on C2W, never rides them, and then after a year sells them on in mint condition!



The company i work for have the C2W scheme and i could have easily bought a bike (up to £1111.00), had it delivered and sold it still boxed. If i leave then the amount owed is deducted from final pay.


----------



## winjim (11 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> we have been discussing Avoidance - what you describe is Evasion pure and simple - shop him to the tax fraud hot line?



I don't know the identity of the person involved.
I don't even know if the story is true.
I am not a grass.
I'm not even sure if it _is_ tax evasion. I tried working out what proportion of journeys were commutes and it turned out to be infinite .


----------



## vickster (11 Aug 2014)

Does he actually make any money that way as bikes lose value even if not used, not least as a year on shops reduce them, unless he seeks out bargains and can use C2W to get them. Seems like a way to block up the garage for a year


----------



## Crankarm (11 Aug 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Smokey was asking for me as I don't visit here so often these days. No one has yet said we need to prove our usage, I'm only getting this from the guidelines.
> 
> ...



I get really f****d off with many people, possibly you as well, attempting to and succeeding in abusing this scheme. The whole point of C2W is that you ACTUALLY ride the bike that you buy on the scheme to and from work. It was not intended to be a scheme to buy a nice bike you like the look of just because you can get it a lot cheaper through tax deduction, with no intention of riding it to or from work or perhaps only on a very occasional basis and then quite a few weekend rides of 50 miles where you are not commuting. To me this is fraud plain and simple. It is the likes of me who do commute everyday to work on my bike and whose employer does not offer this scheme that end up paying for this deception. If any one at the HMRC had a half a brain they would put a quick stop to this flagrant deception. The wording of the guidance needs tightening up considerably as people are just taking the p155.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (11 Aug 2014)

Who would administer it? How could you check all but the most blatant fraud? Where does the money come to do it all, you realise managing it tightly would almost definitely cost more than the money 'lost' and that ignores the fact that there is a secondary benefit to anyone riding a bike wherever they are going.

What would you do with my Synapse? I bought it because I decided I wanted a sporty bike as well as the Hybrid come the summer and specifically to do the Ride London. But as commuting is also training it's probably done more commuting miles than leisure ones and definitely more commuting trips than leisure ones. For the rest of the year if I commute one day a week for any weekend leisure ride I'm still on 66% commuting trips...


----------



## Flying Dodo (11 Aug 2014)

In 2004 HMRC had a similar "employer buy a computer and let an employee use it at home" scheme, which gave tax free use of a computer. That was quickly stopped after a couple of years, partly due to the widespread use of cheap computers generally, but also due to them realising it was being abused.

So the more people brag about abusing the bike scheme and buying bikes which they don't use for commuting at all, then it's bound to be stopped completely.


----------



## harly (11 Aug 2014)

never used the c2w scheme.. so just how much do you save from a 1000 bike over the 18 month


----------



## w00hoo_kent (11 Aug 2014)

There is already the break point in values with expensive bikes becoming less of a bargain. If they stop the scheme it'd be fairly easy to replicate a similar 'deal' with 0% credit cards and a hard bargained shop deal on a bike. Would just take a bit more thought. People are already doing things that way.


----------



## Paul99 (11 Aug 2014)

Crankarm said:


> I get really f****d off with many people, possibly you as well, attempting to and succeeding in abusing this scheme. The whole point of C2W is that you ACTUALLY ride the bike that you buy on the scheme to and from work. It was not intended to be a scheme to buy a nice bike you like the look of just because you can get it a lot cheaper through tax deduction, with no intention of riding it to or from work or perhaps only on a very occasional basis and then quite a few weekend rides of 50 miles where you are not commuting. To me this is fraud plain and simple. It is the likes of me who do commute everyday to work on my bike and whose employer does not offer this scheme that end up paying for this deception. If any one at the HMRC had a half a brain they would put a quick stop to this flagrant deception. The wording of the guidance needs tightening up considerably as people are just taking the p155.


I think the wording needs to be relaxed to stop people like you from getting bent out of shape.

How about the person that only commutes to the office once or twice a week? Can they not use the bike at other times? Should they be forced into their cars or onto public transport?
How about the person who physically can only manage one or two commutes a week but could do several smaller non-commutes? Should they not be allowed to have a bike on the scheme?
How about if i get ill or an injury and can't use my bikes? Am I then committing fraud because I am not following the rules to your satisfaction?

Is this more about you being jealous that your place of work doesn't provide the scheme?

As a cyclist (and a relatively new one who would never had even considered commuting by bike if it wasn't for C2W), I'll be happy if the minimum requirement was one commute (or part commute) a week. The health benefits to everyone, and the possible reduction in costs in healthcare, make it a worthwhile incentive for the govt to offer.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (11 Aug 2014)

harly said:


> never used the c2w scheme.. so just how much do you save from a 1000 bike over the 18 month


13 payments over 12 months and a little bit. Not sure of the saving, maybe £2-300 or so but off a full price bike.


----------



## Peteaud (11 Aug 2014)

If you buy last years model, new and get 0% finance then you will save more than the C2W anyway in most cases.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (11 Aug 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> In 2004 HMRC had a similar "employer buy a computer and let an employee use it at home" schemer, which gave tax free use of a computer. That was quickly stopped after a couple of years, partly due to the widespread use of cheap computers generally, but also due to them realising it was being abused.
> 
> So the more people brag about abusing the bike scheme and buying bikes which they don't use for commuting at all, then it's bound to be stopped completely.


There was a need to get more computers in to households, this did the job and the wasn't needed any more. The amount of government that needs internet access to use has shown that. Once a decent percentage was out there it wasn't so important. More people need to get healthy, new target, similar solution, similar success criteria?


----------



## PK99 (11 Aug 2014)

Paul99 said:


> I
> 
> As a cyclist (and a relatively new one who would never had even considered commuting by bike if it wasn't for C2W), I'll be happy if the minimum requirement was one commute (or part commute) a week. The health benefits to everyone, and the possible reduction in costs in healthcare, make it a worthwhile incentive for the govt to offer.




you are exactly the sort of "non-cyclist" the scheme was aimed at and the hurdle for such as you should be very low.

The cycling enthusiasts who use the scheme build up a stable of bikes are thieves and cheats.


----------



## Paul99 (11 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> you are exactly the sort of "non-cyclist" the scheme was aimed at and the hurdle for such as you should be very low.
> 
> The cycling enthusiasts who use the scheme build up a stable of bikes are thieves and cheats.


At what point do I become a cycling enthusiast and how many bike constitutes a stable? Is this written down somewhere other than your diary?

I'd hate to be labelled a thief or cheat just because I hadn't followed your interpretation of the guidance.


----------



## winjim (11 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> The cycling enthusiasts who use the scheme build up a stable of bikes are thieves and cheats.


Or maybe they are exercising a form of protest against the way their tax money is collected and spent.


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 Aug 2014)

harly said:


> never used the c2w scheme.. so just how much do you save from a 1000 bike over the 18 month


The repayments are taken from your gross salary, so you save the tax you would have paid. The saving thus depends on whether you're a standard- or higher-rate tax-payer.


----------



## Crankarm (11 Aug 2014)

Paul99 said:


> I think the wording needs to be relaxed to stop people like you from getting bent out of shape.
> 
> How about the person that only commutes to the office once or twice a week? Can they not use the bike at other times? Should they be forced into their cars or onto public transport?
> How about the person who physically can only manage one or two commutes a week but could do several smaller non-commutes? Should they not be allowed to have a bike on the scheme?
> ...



The clue is in the title C Y C L E TO W O R K scheme. Commuting suggests a regularity or greater frequency than not and as the wording states greater than 50% so if you decided to ride to your office only once a week and used your bike for journeys other than riding to and from work yes you would be fraudulently reducing your tax bill as you wouldn't be entitled to the tax relief. The other thing that is most galling is that higher rate tax payers are the ones who benefit most from the scheme, the ones who can easily afford to buy a bike anyway or who already possess numerous bikes who are more than likely to think I need yet another which I have no intention of commuting to work on but to ride on the club run or just out on a weekend as no one will check. As pointed out you can generally get last year's model in a sale and not even bother with the scheme and save yourself even more. The C2W would not influence me whether I bought a bike for commuting to work, the thing that annoys me is that many who do choose to buy a bike through the scheme see it as an easy rouse, a formality with next to no checks, to get another bike with no intention of riding it to work which is dishonest and I don't like subsidising cheats and fraudsters. Period.


----------



## vickster (11 Aug 2014)

Not all high rate tax payers have a high disposable income as you suggest


----------



## PK99 (11 Aug 2014)

winjim said:


> Or maybe they are exercising a form of protest against the way their tax money is collected and spent.



May be jimmy Carr etc were doing that too, would you consider their behaviour acceptable?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (11 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> May be jimmy Carr etc were doing that too, would you consider their behaviour acceptable?


In the scheme of things, yeah. Individuals may be great news stories, but when you look at the big picture and project screw ups or corporate wheezes this or that famous person dodging some tax doesn't vex me. I'd prefer the effort put in to lambasting them was used to tighten up the rules. Especially when they are pretty much playing by them. I also don't grump at people who own nice houses, or Ferraris, or musicians who sign music deals and start earning real money.

I'm a big fan of the American view of someone else's success being a thing to be applauded and find the British approach of distrust and annoyance quite depressing


----------



## PK99 (11 Aug 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> In the scheme of things, yeah. Individuals may be great news stories, but when you look at the big picture and project screw ups or corporate wheezes this or that famous person dodging some tax doesn't vex me. I'd prefer the effort put in to lambasting them was used to tighten up the rules. Especially when they are pretty much playing by them. I also don't grump at people who own nice houses, or Ferraris, or musicians who sign music deals and start earning real money.
> 
> I'm a big fan of the American view of someone else's success being a thing to be applauded and find the British approach of distrust and annoyance quite depressing



So, paying tax is voluntary?.... And only mugs pay for your NHS?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Aug 2014)

Nope, I don't think anyone is saying Jimmy Carr paid 0 tax. But the little bits here and there that everyone likes to make loud noises about amounts to significantly less money out of the NHS than, say, a 5 year over due totally mismanaged software project has.


----------



## winjim (12 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> May be jimmy Carr etc were doing that too, would you consider their behaviour acceptable?


I find it more acceptable than some of the ways the government chooses to spend my money.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Aug 2014)

Those pesky people that contribute into a pension scheme and get tax relief. Feckin thieves the lot of em.

Child care vouchers - bleedin people who have these suck the life out of everyone.


----------



## Peteaud (12 Aug 2014)

I think at this point i would like to add you can buy a helmet on C2W as well.


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

User said:


> The whole premise of the C2W scheme is to get more people on bikes. It does that.
> 
> 'Nuff said.



The whole premise of the film industry tax relief was to increase film production in the UK and thereby increase economic activity, taxation revenue and cultural benefits

It does that. Nuff said?

And therefore the abuse of the system to create tax losses but no films is ok?


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

User said:


> Still people on bikes. Either way, it's people not in cars, being healthier and happier...



n+1 does not increase the number of people on bikes


----------



## 400bhp (12 Aug 2014)

O


User said:


> How do you know? If someone has one bike and gets another, they might lend one of them to someone else.
> 
> And frankly, if it encourages people to ride more - even if it's the same person riding more frequently, then it has done what it was intended to do.


Or they might simply be more inclined to cycle.

No Vat on food. Outragous


----------



## jarlrmai (12 Aug 2014)

It can contribute a bit, I have 2 bikes my old C2W road bike which I no longer ride to work as I've gone from a 20 mile commute to a 2 mile commute and my cheap single speed which I now ride to work (I didn't buy the SS on C2W) without the SS i'd be walking. I ride the the road bike on club runs and solo evening rides now.


----------



## Soltydog (12 Aug 2014)

harly said:


> never used the c2w scheme.. so just how much do you save from a 1000 bike over the 18 month


Your payments for the bike are taken as a salary sacrifice which means they come off your gross pay before deductions, so you will save on your tax payments 20% or 40% depending on your earnings & also save on NI payments which I believe are approx 9%. But at the end of the scheme you should have to pay a final value fee, but if your bike is used every day, never serviced & in poor condition this payment will be low 
Your overall saving can be around 50% if you are a higher rate tax payer & 30% if you are on lower rate tax


----------



## Soltydog (12 Aug 2014)

User said:


> If it is N+1 collections, it is not more people on bikes, it is the same people on more bikes.


N+1 helps, if you have mechanical issue with a bike, N+1 means you always have a back up bike, so you dont need to use the car


----------



## broadway (12 Aug 2014)

Soltydog said:


> But at the end of the scheme you should have to pay a final value fee, but if your bike is used every day, never serviced & in poor condition this payment will be low



HMRC have decided standard % for residual values according to age so condition is irrelevant for the major schemes involved. It would be down to you to argue your case with HRMC.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Aug 2014)

broadway said:


> HMRC have decided standard % for residual values according to age so condition is irrelevant for the major schemes involved. It would be down to you to argue your case with HRMC.


Yup, Cyclescheme just says 'it cost this much new, it's worth this much now' I don't know if there is an option to say 'but it's crap now' although part of the sign up is that you agree to keep it in good condition because you don't actually own it at that point.


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> It can contribute a bit, I have 2 bikes my old C2W road bike which I no longer ride to work as I've gone from a 20 mile commute to a 2 mile commute and my cheap single speed which I now ride to work (I didn't buy the SS on C2W) without the SS i'd be walking. I ride the the road bike on club runs and solo evening rides now.



nothing wrong with that at all, and there would have been nothing wrong in getting the SS on C2W,
but if you were to get a C2W bike specifically to use on your club runs and leisure riding that would be stealing from your fellow citizens.


----------



## Hop3y (12 Aug 2014)

Never had to prove this, but if my employers looked at my Strava, they'd know I do more than 50%!


----------



## mcshroom (12 Aug 2014)

Though there are other options such as the Cyclescheme workaround where they give you an extended hire period for a nominal fee and then convert that fee into the final payment at the end of that period (just happened with my C2W bike.

I'm not as vitriolic about it as some on here, but I do believe that for the period of the C2W scheme, the bike should be riden primarily as your commuting bike. My tourer was, and I haven't gone for another bike on C2W since then as I switched to riding my (self funded) singlespeed for commuting so didn't need one.

Measurement is difficult though, as which is more sensible, the rider who rides all year as a commuter and utility cyclist but with trips to shops, etc, comes out at 45% of journeys being commuting, or the rider who buys a bike, rides it once to work and then puts it in the garage for the rest of the year and goes back to driving? Under the guidelines the latter is acting correctly and the former is not.


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

mcshroom said:


> Though there are other options such as the Cyclescheme workaround where they give you an extended hire period for a nominal fee and then convert that fee into the final payment at the end of that period (just happened with my C2W bike.
> 
> I'm not as vitriolic about it as some on here, but I do believe that for the period of the C2W scheme, the bike should be riden primarily as your commuting bike. My tourer was, and I haven't gone for another bike on C2W since then as I switched to riding my (self funded) singlespeed for commuting so didn't need one.
> 
> Measurement is difficult though, as which is more sensible, the rider who rides all year as a commuter and utility cyclist but with trips to shops, etc, comes out at 45% of journeys being commuting, or the rider who buys a bike, rides it once to work and then puts it in the garage for the rest of the year and goes back to driving? Under the guidelines the latter is acting correctly and the former is not.



It is not those sorts of distinctions that are the issue, it is the keen cyclist with a stable of bikes who already commutes by bike to work who gets a Ribble winter training bike on the scheme (real example of someone who was in my club). that is, clear and simple, stealing from your fellow citizens.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> It is not those sorts of distinctions that are the issue, it is the keen cyclist with a stable of bikes who already commutes by bike to work who gets a Ribble winter training bike on the scheme (real example of someone who was in my club). that is, clear and simple, stealing from your fellow citizens.


I hope you tut at them loudly every time you walk past them.

I say again, what would the cost be to police the system so that person couldn't 'get away with it'? I believe it would be more than the savings you got by stopping them.


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I hope you tut at them loudly every time you walk past them.
> 
> I say again, *what would the cost be to police the system so that person couldn't 'get away with it'?* I believe it would be more than the savings you got by stopping them.



Ethical behaviour is not about not doing something for fear of being caught, it is about not doing something because it is wrong.

You are right - it would cost more to police that it saved, but that does not make stealing from your fellow citizens any less unethical.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Aug 2014)

But laws are breakable, ethics are a much more personal thing. Your ethics aren't the be all and end all for everyone else. I mean, ethically, is it wrong to eat the last rolo? Cross the road on the red man? Let your garden turn in to a wilderness? Drown a kitten? (My answer to some of those may be 'yes' of course).

And laws you can't/won't enforce are pointless.


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

From Single track forum some time ago:

"Tried to buy my 2 yr old son a Giant Animator 12" on the firm's cyclescheme and got busted (questioned my need for stabilisers).

Am I in the poo now, or is this the sort of fair game abuse that just gets passed off?"

...

"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."


----------



## Paul99 (12 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> From Single track forum some time ago:
> 
> "Tried to buy my 2 yr old son a Giant Animator 12" on the firm's cyclescheme and got busted (questioned my need for stabilisers).
> 
> ...


Awesome, an anecdote as proof positive that the scheme is being abused.


----------



## AndyRM (12 Aug 2014)

User said:


> Is anyone disputing that the scheme is abused? I thought the discussion was how much and whether it is materially important.



No. A bit, no.


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

User said:


> Sounds about right. I know there is a hanging and/or flog them lobby but that wouldn't survive examining the arithmetic involved.



It's not about arithmetic, it's about personal ethics.

In the start pen on Sunday the guy infront of me was putting stuff in his jersey pocket under his waterproof and missed with a £20 note. A couple of inches of foot movement from me and it would have been hidden - not one had seen, he was oblivious. Instead I bent down, picked it up and passed it to him over his shoulder. Personal ethics.

If someone's personal ethics allows them to go up to a poorly paid tax payer and say "I'm very well paid, earning much more than you, and am pleased to say I cheated the tax system by abusing the C2W scheme" Then, frankly, shame on them.


----------



## Paul99 (12 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> If someone's personal ethics allows them to go up to a poorly paid tax payer and say "I'm very well paid, earning much more than you, and am pleased to say I cheated the tax system by abusing the C2W scheme" Then, frankly, shame on them.


 
It's only very well paid people doing this then is it?


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

Paul99 said:


> It's only very well paid people doing this then is it?



In the N+1 building a stable argument, yes.

And certainly one of the proponents is happy to state he is very well paid and the salary sacrifice helps wrt child benefit.


----------



## Profpointy (12 Aug 2014)

I have to say, I think the scheme is total nonsense, unjust and tokenism even if you accept its aim.

Anyone buying a bike for a grand, especially if on 40% can afford a bike quite easily, and is hardly going to be put off commuting by bike because of cash.

Someone restoring an old bike or wanting a better bike (or new wheels say), can't but has to have a whole new bike - imported at that.

Someone on lower wages who might just benefit somewhat will only be buying a cheaper bike, and only get basic rate tax off it - so any savings will likely be swallowed up by various middle men. And if they're fixing up an old bike, there's nowt!

Just maybe, encouraging more bikes to be sold is "a good thing", but I'm not really keen on special pleading and subsidies for this or that. Mind you, the car scrappage scheme was a whole order of magnitude more stupid and iniquitous, but that's not a reason for stupidity here.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Aug 2014)

If bits of bikes isn't on it now, it was definitely talked about this year as something that was going to be allowed.

I'm not sure I see the super wealthy stable builder as a thing (much like ethics I guess it depends on what you count as being rich) the people I see buying up a stable are filling in holes with bikes that will be ridden when they probably wouldn't be bothering. If I was rich and looking at a 4k bike (in my head that's what rich people do) then I wouldn't be hire purchasing it from C2W.


----------



## KneesUp (12 Aug 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> If bits of bikes isn't on it now, it was definitely talked about this year as something that was going to be allowed.
> 
> I'm not sure I see the super wealthy stable builder as a thing (much like ethics I guess it depends on what you count as being rich) the people I see buying up a stable are filling in holes with bikes that will be ridden when they probably wouldn't be bothering. If I was rich and looking at a 4k bike (in my head that's what rich people do) then I wouldn't be hire purchasing it from C2W.


Why does the 'stable builder' have to be super wealthy? There are people on this thread who have bought / plan to buy multiple bikes on c2w - one of them admits to doing so because it reduced take home pay and therefore increases child benefit payments, meaning the bike is subsidised once because there is no tax on the income taken for it, and subsidised twice because the result of that is increased child related benefit.


----------



## Soltydog (12 Aug 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Anyone buying a bike for a grand, especially if on 40% can afford a bike quite easily, and is hardly going to be put off commuting by bike because of cash.


How does paying 40% tax make me able to afford a bike more easily?
3 years ago my wife was working & our mortgage was £850, now my wife no longer works (or claims benefits) & this year I will just be onto the higher rate of tax, but my mortgage is still £850 & without my wife's earnings we have less disposable income now . Just because someone pays higher rate tax it doesn't make them have more free cash


----------



## Soltydog (12 Aug 2014)

broadway said:


> HMRC have decided standard % for residual values according to age so condition is irrelevant for the major schemes involved. It would be down to you to argue your case with HRMC.



The last scheme I was in with cycle solutions, they asked 3 questions which determined the final value


----------



## Soltydog (12 Aug 2014)

broadway said:


> HMRC have decided standard % for residual values according to age so condition is irrelevant for the major schemes involved. It would be down to you to argue your case with HRMC.



The last scheme I was in with cycle solutions, they asked 3 questions which determined the final value


----------



## Profpointy (12 Aug 2014)

Soltydog said:


> How does paying 40% tax make me able to afford a bike more easily?
> 3 years ago my wife was working & our mortgage was £850, now my wife no longer works (or claims benefits) & this year I will just be onto the higher rate of tax, but my mortgage is still £850 & without my wife's earnings we have less disposable income now . Just because someone pays higher rate tax it doesn't make them have more free cash



, but it does mean you've more money than someone on a lower rate though doesn't it, even if you had even more money last year or whatever


----------



## Soltydog (12 Aug 2014)

Profpointy said:


> , but it does mean you've more money than someone on a lower rate though doesn't it, even if you had even more money last year or whatever


Not necessarily. A couple each earning £35-£40k with a smaller mortgage/rent would have a higher disposable income than my wife & I but would be on lower rate tax  It's even possible for a young person living at home with parents paying minimal 'board' on the minimum wage could have more disposable income than us. A persons taxable income does not always relate to free cash available for funding hobbies


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

Soltydog said:


> Not necessarily. A couple each earning £35-£40k with a smaller mortgage/rent would have a higher disposable income than my wife & I but would be on lower rate tax  It's even possible for a young person living at home with parents paying minimal 'board' on the minimum wage could have more disposable income than us. A persons taxable income does not always relate to *free cash available for funding hobbies *



C2W is not about funding hobbies, it is about commuting.


----------



## mcshroom (12 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> It is not those sorts of distinctions that are the issue


Why are they not the issue? Could it be because they show this to be less black and white than you are making out? 


> , it is the keen cyclist with a stable of bikes who already commutes by bike to work who gets a Ribble winter training bike on the scheme (real example of someone who was in my club). that is, clear and simple, stealing from your fellow citizens.


In what way? A winter Ribble is a pretty standard commuter at our place, and assuming more than half the journeys made during the hie period on that bike are to work then it is well within the rules.


----------



## broadway (12 Aug 2014)

Soltydog said:


> The last scheme I was in with cycle solutions, they asked 3 questions which determined the final value



That's not what Cycle Solutions say:
*End Of Scheme - Extended Hire Agreement*
How is the market value for a bike obtained through a Cycle to Work Scheme calculated?
HMRC has published the following ‘Valuation Table’ to be used to calculate the market value of bicycles and safety equipment at the end of the ‘salary sacrifice’ rental period:

Age of cycleAcceptable disposal value percentage
Orignal price less than £500Orignal price £500+
12 Months18%25%
18 Months16%21%
2 years13%17%
3 years8%12%
4 years3%7%


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

mcshroom said:


> Why are they not the issue? Could it be because they show this to be less black and white than you are making out?
> 
> In what way? A winter Ribble is a pretty standard commuter at our place, and assuming more than half the journeys made during the hie period on that bike are to work then it is well within the rules.



his intention was to use it as a winter training bike and never use it for commuting - he already had a good stable of bikes and simply wanted another


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

old but makes the point;

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/t...-got-away-with-this-bike-to-work-scheme-story

and from another thread;

"as a mobile service engineer who works from home with a van full of tools my comute is 2metres from garage to van, but i am on my 3rd bike on the scheme,"


----------



## Soltydog (12 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> C2W is not about funding hobbies, it is about commuting.



I agree, but Profpointy was assuming that someone on higher rate tax could easily afford to buy a decent bike without using the C2W scheme


----------



## theclaud (12 Aug 2014)

Soltydog said:


> I agree, but Profpointy was assuming that someone on higher rate tax could easily afford to buy a decent bike without using the C2W scheme


Well, in that case he's pretty much right, given that it's possible to get a fairly decent bike for most commuting purposes for about £300. Should I add a ?


----------



## CopperCyclist (12 Aug 2014)

Well for what it's worth, with all the arguing the scheme worked exactly the way it was intended to with me - I got a bike, I cycled to work, I didn't look back and haven't driven in since* in 3 years +. 

*with the exception of a couple of night shifts when I have no option due to childcare, which has only been the last year!


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> Well for what it's worth, with all the arguing the scheme worked exactly the way it was intended to with me - I got a bike, I cycled to work, I didn't look back and haven't driven in since* in 3 years +.
> 
> *with the exception of a couple of night shifts when I have no option due to childcare, which has only been the last year!



Great to hear.

It would be a pity if abuses ever led to the scrapping of the scheme.........


----------



## Big Nick (12 Aug 2014)

I'm not so sure on the 'stealing from the public' thing

In my case I wouldn't of bought another bike if it wasn't for the c2w so effectively the public wouldn't of benefitted from any further tax from me, presumably some others would be the same and a lot more bikes would be sat around in bike shop stock rooms

Whichever was you slice it the idea was to open more peoples eyes to the option of cycle commuting which it seems to have done. Surely the Government are not naive enough to think *everyone *who gets a bike on c2w will commute to work on it every/most days, if this bothered them presumably more stringent checks would be inherent in the c2w system?


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (30 Aug 2014)

Crankarm said:


> I get really f****d off with many people, possibly you as well, attempting to and succeeding in abusing this scheme. The whole point of C2W is that you ACTUALLY ride the bike that you buy on the scheme to and from work. It was not intended to be a scheme to buy a nice bike you like the look of just because you can get it a lot cheaper through tax deduction, with no intention of riding it to or from work or perhaps only on a very occasional basis and then quite a few weekend rides of 50 miles where you are not commuting. To me this is fraud plain and simple. It is the likes of me who do commute everyday to work on my bike and whose employer does not offer this scheme that end up paying for this deception. If any one at the HMRC had a half a brain they would put a quick stop to this flagrant deception. The wording of the guidance needs tightening up considerably as people are just taking the p155.



You are entitled to be pissed off, fair point.

My scheme isn't open to company car drivers unfortunately so I can't go on it anyway.

Although, I feel you aren't looking at it correctly. I'm a 40% tax payer and as such I pay a lot of tax, plus I pay extra tax for the use of a company car so all in. All I pay a LOT of tax. I'm not moaning about that as such, I'm in a lucky position and I know it.

But, benefitting by around £400 by going on this scheme would be a drop in a large tax ocean PLUS as I would commute on some occasions leaving my car at home I would be getting one more car off the road for at least a bit more than otherwise and it may encourage others to do the same.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (30 Aug 2014)

Profpointy said:


> , but it does mean you've more money than someone on a lower rate though doesn't it, even if you had even more money last year or whatever



There are always two ways of looking at it, a working couple who each earn £25k will pay less tax (and have more net income) than a stay at home mum and a Dad who pays 40% tax earning £50k.


----------



## PK99 (30 Aug 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> You are entitled to be ****ed off, fair point.
> 
> My scheme isn't open to company car drivers unfortunately so I can't go on it anyway.
> 
> ...



if you have a bike already, getting a scheme bike would do nothing to increase your opportunity to cycle commute


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (30 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> if you have a bike already, getting a scheme bike would do nothing to increase your opportunity to cycle commute



True, fair point although tbh I was going to get a folding to keep in the car so if the weather is ok I can ride home and back again so it 'may' have had the desired effect but is a moot point.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Aug 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> You are entitled to be ****ed off, fair point.
> 
> My scheme isn't open to company car drivers unfortunately so I can't go on it anyway.
> 
> ...



Just to be clear. You only pay less tax because you buy a bike. The bike being more than the tax saving. Lots of people seem to miss that. So you are in a net worse position.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (30 Aug 2014)

400bhp said:


> Just to be clear. You only pay less tax because you buy a bike. The bike being more than the tax saving. Lots of people seem to miss that. So you are in a net worse position.



True, and as I would have been buying British build off a British company who pay british corporation tax...


----------



## Crankarm (31 Aug 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> You are entitled to be ****ed off, fair point.
> 
> My scheme isn't open to company car drivers unfortunately so I can't go on it anyway.
> 
> ...



You only pay 40% tax on earnings above £42k iirc. You don't pay 40% on ALL your income. So you must have a pretty good income. The scheme still unfairly favours high earners i.e. those that pay 40% tax.


----------



## winjim (31 Aug 2014)

Crankarm said:


> You only pay 40% tax on earnings above £42k iirc. You don't pay 40% on ALL your income. So you must have a pretty good income. The scheme still unfairly favours high earners i.e. those that pay 40% tax.


40% tax bracket is somewhere in the region of £32k. So not megabucks.


----------



## Crankarm (31 Aug 2014)

PK99 said:


> if you have a bike already, getting a scheme bike would do nothing to increase your opportunity to cycle commute



I could still get a bike on the scheme and commute on it though. AFAIK there are no restrictions ……. that if you already ride to and from work on a bike you've already bought with your own cash without tax relief you are ineligible to use the C2W scheme.


----------



## Crankarm (31 Aug 2014)

winjim said:


> 40% tax bracket is somewhere in the region of £32k. So not megabucks.



£32,245. I stand corrected. But still a very healthy income …………….


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (31 Aug 2014)

Crankarm said:


> You only pay 40% tax on earnings above £42k iirc. You don't pay 40% on ALL your income. So you must have a pretty good income. The scheme still unfairly favours high earners i.e. those that pay 40% tax.



Yeah, £32k as stated but I drive an expensive company car so that allowance takes up most of my tax allowance so I do pay a lot of tax. Not complaining, I'm very lucky.


----------



## CopperBrompton (31 Aug 2014)

winjim said:


> 40% tax bracket is somewhere in the region of £32k.


Nope, it's £31,866 *plus your personal allowance*, so for most people 40% tax kicks in at £41,866. (The exception is if you earn more than £100k, when your personal allowance decreases by £1 for every £2 you earn, reaching zero at £120k gross income.)


----------



## CopperBrompton (31 Aug 2014)

Crankarm said:


> The scheme still unfairly favours high earners i.e. those that pay 40% tax.


Higher earners get more benefit from the scheme, but whether that is unfair is debatable as they pay a lot more tax in the first place.


----------



## Drago (31 Aug 2014)

I never used my C2W bike for commuting. Itwas just an easy N+1 while I sneakily continued to commute on. the same bike.


----------



## Drago (31 Aug 2014)

I think I better turn myself in. In mitigation I shall point out that my boss at the time did the same so I foolishly presumed it was ok.

Tell a lie, I did commute on it once and used it that day to teach a refresher course.


----------



## Learnincurve (31 Aug 2014)

It makes me sad that people are being given a free bike, when I don't get one.  

Why no bikes for full time carers if it's about environmental impact? We get paid well under minimum wage as it is and it would be a nice "thank you for not saying "no pay someone from the NHS £60k a year to do it, I'll earn more and do less hours working at macdonalds, hey wonder if they would give me a free bike""


----------



## Drago (31 Aug 2014)

Who's been given a free bike?

I'm a full time carer for a wheelchair bound spouse and still work full-time (I work for the rest!) 

In essence I have 2 full-time jobs, one of which is unpaid, and I buy my own bikes like everyone else has to.


----------



## Learnincurve (31 Aug 2014)

Drago said:


> Who's been given a free bike?
> .



. 
People on the cycle to work scheme get a free bike and it looks like they don't even need to use it to cycle to work.


----------



## winjim (31 Aug 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Nope, it's £31,866 *plus your personal allowance*, so for most people 40% tax kicks in at £41,866. (The exception is if you earn more than £100k, when your personal allowance decreases by £1 for every £2 you earn, reaching zero at £120k gross income.)


I was under the impression it included your personal allowance. I stand corrected.


----------



## Drago (31 Aug 2014)

Don't be daft. C2W doesn't give you a free bike.

You still pay for it but monthly out of your wages. It's a Hire Purchase scheme, and after 12 months 'rental' you make a final payment based on. the value of the bike at 1 year old (or hand it back and walk away). This final payment used to be tax advantageous because inland revenue would value the bike typically at a fraction of its real value, though there days the valuation is more realistic and the saving is very little.

No bugger is being given a free bike. They buy them, just like everyone else.


----------



## winjim (31 Aug 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> .
> People on the cycle to work scheme get a free bike and it looks like they don't even need to use it to cycle to work.


No they don't. They pay full price for the bike. They just don't pay income tax on the money earned to pay for the bike.


----------



## Drago (31 Aug 2014)

Free bike indeed. Still pithing myself laughing at that one! My 'free' bike cost me a thousand pounds, thank you very much.


----------



## Learnincurve (1 Sep 2014)

Ok so I looked it up, looks like it's a lot like hire purchase at a huge discount, as in you get up to 40% off RRP, so that "free" bike cost the tax payer something like £500, add in a top of the line garmin edge on the accessories bit and that's another £100.

I just don't understand why this scheme isn't open to everyone. Surely the decrease in the number of heart attacks the NHS has to deal with would cover it.


----------



## Drago (1 Sep 2014)

My 'free' bike retailed at 11 hundred and something quid, and cost me a grand almost to the penny. In the last couple of years the revenue boys have changed the way they value the bikes for the final payment, which has negated a lot of the tax saving higher up the line. Savings are nearer single figures percentage wise now. 40% would've been 4 or 5 years ago when the final value of the bike after one year was set at 5% - today it's set closer to genuine market value. The biggest advantage now is interest free repayments rather than any nominal tax advantage.

The scheme is open to everyone... if you can persuade you company to enrol. Problem is, someone has to administer it and in a larger organisation such as the NHS that's potentially a full time job for someone, a salary that might be better served paying someone who treats patients. To make it more accessible maybe it should be administered by central government instead of via the employer?


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Sep 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> Ok so I looked it up, looks like it's a lot like hire purchase at a huge discount, as in you get up to 40% off RRP, so that "free" bike cost the tax payer something like £500, add in a top of the line garmin edge on the accessories bit and that's another £100.



The scheme can only provide for a bike & safety equipment, which would include helmets & lights, not a GPS.


----------



## Drago (1 Sep 2014)

Spot on Mr Dodo. Things are getting a bit hysterical because someone hasn't got something someone else has and they don't like it.


----------



## Drago (1 Sep 2014)

The twat nav users who drive into rivers and off cliffs present a safety issue alright.

PS, I love your avatar Adrian. My nipper is into Ben and Holly.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (1 Sep 2014)

User said:


> You don't think that not getting lost couldn't be viewed as a safety issue?


C2W doesn't think that any form of bike computer is an aid to commuting in any way so they aren't in. It's a little odd as I think they are the only bit of cycling kit that is out of the scheme, although I could be wrong.


----------



## hopless500 (1 Sep 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Or, in other words, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.


For goodness sake. Give over will you. 
This is getting petty.


----------



## NorvernRob (1 Sep 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> Ok so I looked it up, looks like it's a lot like hire purchase at a huge discount, as in you get up to 40% off RRP, so that "free" bike cost the tax payer something like £500, add in a top of the line garmin edge on the accessories bit and that's another £100.
> 
> I just don't understand why this scheme isn't open to everyone. Surely the decrease in the number of heart attacks the NHS has to deal with would cover it.



With the final payments now being much higher than previously, the actual saving on a £1000 bike for a standard rate taxpayer is around 10%. When you factor in that many independent stores pass on their cost of the schemes to the buyer, it can actually work out as cheap or cheaper to get a bike straight from a shop on 0% finance.

I got mine from Planet X, the total I'll pay from salary sacrifice is £680 after tax, I also paid PX 12% deposit (the aforementioned costs they pass on) and if I choose to pay the final payment it will probably end up costing more than the £1000 cost of the bike!

As opposed to that, I've just bought a Cube Peloton Race as a winter bike, full 105, Mavic Aksium wheels for £700 reduced from £1000 - I paid a couple of hundred £ deposit and financed the rest over a year for close to the same amount I paid on my C2W bike for 18 months.

C2W was never a free bike but these days it's hardly worth doing it when there are so many good deals around.


----------



## KneesUp (1 Sep 2014)

hopless500 said:


> For goodness sake. Give over will you.
> This is getting petty.


I 'gave over' 3 weeks ago, about the time I made the post you've just quoted - there is no point in discussing things with people who insist black is white because it is in their own interest to do so.


----------



## adscrim (1 Sep 2014)

NorvernRob said:


> With the final payments now being much higher than previously, the actual saving on a £1000 bike for a standard rate taxpayer is around 10%. When you factor in that many independent stores pass on their cost of the schemes to the buyer, it can actually work out as cheap or cheaper to get a bike straight from a shop on 0% finance.
> 
> I got mine from Planet X, the total I'll pay from salary sacrifice is £680 after tax, I also paid PX 12% deposit (the aforementioned costs they pass on) and if I choose to pay the final payment it will probably end up costing more than the £1000 cost of the bike!
> 
> ...



It's not the case that every C2W scheme is the same so it may still be possible to make savings. For example, my employer uses cycle solutions as a dedicated provider and offers extended lease periods at the end of the scheme. This means there is no deposit payable and almost no payment at the end of the scheme. However, the cycle solutions website is almost entirely 'RRP' in it's pricing.


----------



## martint235 (1 Sep 2014)

I made my last payment on my C2W bike in the August payslip. Roughly how long do I need to wait before it gets finalised and completed so I can get another bike? Already decided what it will be.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (1 Sep 2014)

Should be able to do it now. Check your account on the website?


----------



## martint235 (1 Sep 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Should be able to do it now. Check your account on the website?


Yeah done that. At the moment I'm in the "Collected" stage rather than the "Decision Time" stage. So the question is how long before I can expect my decision email? I have a bike shaped gap in my conservatory. Well I don't obviously cos it's currently occupied by two bike with the other one being in the shed but you know what I mean.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (1 Sep 2014)

I think they sent me the 'decision email' the month after my last instalment, but I'm not 100% sure, I left it around 4 months between first and second bike because I didn't want to buy the Synapse in November and have its life start with winter riding.


----------



## Drago (1 Sep 2014)

I want my free bike.


----------



## Drago (1 Sep 2014)

That's where some of my best bikes came from!


----------



## Kestevan (2 Sep 2014)

Personally I think the scheme is open to abuse, and unfairly benefits a (fairly) small number of people.
It should be scrapped. 

But they should also remove the VAT from all bikes and cycling components/accessories. That would reduce the cost for everyone and may encourage those with lower disposable incomes to look at buying a bike or indeed repairing an old clunker.


----------



## PK99 (2 Sep 2014)

Kestevan said:


> Personally I think the scheme is open to abuse, and unfairly benefits a (fairly) small number of people.
> It should be scrapped.
> 
> *But they should also remove the VAT from all bikes *and cycling components/accessories. That would reduce the cost for everyone and may encourage those with lower disposable incomes to look at buying a bike or indeed repairing an old clunker.



No VAT on a £5000 time trial bike?


----------



## wilkotom (2 Sep 2014)

PK99 said:


> No VAT on a £5000 time trial bike?



Why not? The number of bikes sold above about £1k must be minuscule compared to the number below. Adding exceptions increases the cost and complexity of such a scheme disproportionately - how do you decide where the cut-off point is? If it's at a certain price, how do you decide when that's re-evaluated. Then you've got loopholes (pay for each component separately, and a small VAT-rated charge for assembly for example). Plus retailers will have additional costs in making sure they correctly record VAT and non-VAT sales accordingly.


----------



## PK99 (2 Sep 2014)

wilkotom said:


> Why not? The number of bikes sold above about £1k must be minuscule compared to the number below. .



i n 2010, 6% of bike sales were over £1k (Source Director magazine)
probably rather more than that now


----------



## Kestevan (2 Sep 2014)

Why not.
Makes it open to everyone.

In fact why not go further and scrap VAT on all sports equipment?
If this reduces the tax intake too far we could always stick an additional tax onto car purchases. Might encourage a few more people to get off their arse and exercise.


----------



## MisterStan (2 Sep 2014)

Some of us have cars and bikes. I already pay enough to keep my car on the road thanks.


----------



## Drago (2 Sep 2014)

Absolutely. My two tonne puppy murdering nun slaughtering pick up costs a fortune to run. Fuel at 65p/l, free car tax, I isn't made of money!


----------



## martint235 (3 Sep 2014)

Kestevan said:


> Personally I think the scheme is open to abuse, and unfairly benefits a (fairly) small number of people.
> It should be scrapped.
> 
> But they should also remove the VAT from all bikes and cycling components/accessories. That would reduce the cost for everyone and may encourage those with lower disposable incomes to look at buying a bike or indeed repairing an old clunker.


Bizarrely as I'm one of the small number of people that gets a good benefit from it (effectively almost a half price bike on an interest free loan), I kind of agree with you. I think the Treasury should look more closely at the final payment bit. When the scheme was first launched I think it worked well, everyone got a good deal (admittedly 40% earners still got a better deal) and I think it should be taken back to that. Advertise it as "If you cycle to work, you'll get an interest free loan and a tax rebate on your bike" and I don't think you can lose.


----------

