Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Agree completely.  What is disturbing is that VCS actually went for an appeal, the motorists were too lazy to turn up so Simon now has an appeal level verdict in his favour.
    • There were a number of matters that concern me in Judge Saffman's verdict. The first is  that you cannot form a contract with a forbidding  rule. This was not the case in PE v Beavis as it was within the bounds of a carpark where motorists were allowed to park their cars.  Also if a motorist who does stop when apparently they shouldn't is therefore a trespasser and as such VCS cannot sue for trespass only the landowner can do that. Secondly and the Judges in the Beavis case alluded to the fact that while the amount charged -£85- was not a penalty, that had he offence been one of secondary importance then the charge would have been a penalty.To pull off the road for 30 seconds would in most people's view be of secondary importance and therefore a penalty. It is interesting to note that the new Appeals charter for motorists will include mitigating reasons and a tiered system to differentiate between major and minor offences.  On top of that what does a driver do if a pedestrian walks out on to the road. At the moment it looks as if the driver has to run them over since to stop would bring on a fine. That would be ridiculous. And what about a tyre burst or a collision between two vehicles? The Law for the latter  is that you have to stop and exchange details. And there are several other reasons why a motorist may have to stop and none of them would be mitigating. And for every case where a "no stopping" rule has been upheld by a Judge, there have been about  five where the decision has gone the other way.   The Judge paid too much attention to the Beavis case and took its arguments into consideration to justify his reasons when the Beavis case had little similarity to the no stopping case which was confirmed by the District Judge who staed that the two cases "were substantially different on the facts".  
    • Ok I sent off my letter to Gladstone and MB, now the waiting game. I showed MSE and National Consumer Service my letter before claim response and the majority people were not impressed with my letter.   But after reading this quote on CAG, it feels like the next best approach regardless: ''No, it is not a joke reply. The more you show these con artists respect the more they will try to fleece you. Don't fill in their Section D. Treat them with contempt. They're not the police or the council, they have no right to this money and they know it.''   I still feel I've made the right decision but I feel doubtful at times with the wide amount of different opinions people have approaching this situation on the MSE and National Consumer Service forums.   (When I put in p.e.p.i.p.o.o it auto corrects to National Consumer Service)  
    • Exactly which is the core issue for the dispute they have estimated an annual usage in excess of 100,000 kWh of gas. Not only estimate it but they have attempted to bill for it as well.   This is again why I move to make a case for fraud. Their action is so egriegous it must be known to be dishonest and potentially a deliberate move to prevent switching supplier.   Therefore any corrective action does not hinge on my input, notwithstanding it is not required in their terms and conditions.
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Business Mileage - Home to Work


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1446 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I wonder if anyone can help as I am not finding the correct information anywhere or getting confusing answers.

 

I have an employee that is claiming mileage to visit a clients offices.

As I understand it he can claim from the normal place of work to the client offices but not from home direct to the clients offices.

 

I have tried to look on HMRC but it doesnt really help.

The contract with the client says reasonable expenses are to be paid,

therefore mileage could be recovered,

however they too have raised the query on why they are paying from his home.

Any thoughts please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe you are correct. If the distance from home to the client is longer then they have a legitimate gripe.

 

Thank you. Would anyone have a link to any useful website that could confirm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

When I was involved with this last, the company said that if someone went from home to a client meeting, they would deduct the distance from home to the office from the outward journey, if you see what I mean.

 

I'm not clear from your first post about who isn't happy with this, could you tell us a little bit more please?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The journey from home to your normal place of business is a commute rather than business miles so not claimable. Playing hard rules until you're at your normal place of work to set out to a client it isn't a business journey. It's HMRC rules so it should be on their website.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The client isnt happy and I agree, however the employee doesnt.

This is why employers end up playing hardball and insisting employees do their normal commute into work before going out to clients. The client didn't contract with your employee to travel from wherever they choose to live, they contracted with your company at your normal place of business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the distance from home to the client is longer then from home to work the employee can claim the difference in mileage.

 

So if the commute to work is 10 miles and the commute to the client is 12 miles they can claim the 2 miles.

 

If they go to the normal place of work first and then to the client they can then claim from and to the place of work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think HMRC tell you where your employee can claim from to that degree, that's probably a contractual matter. HMRC just set figures for allowances for travelling business miles. I imagine the employee was being paid from the time they left home? Or did you want them to come to work first, to start the clock running? What's the benefit in the argument? If the employee only works a set amount of hours in a day, isn't it beneficial to get them to drive straight to the client than coming to work first?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HMRC rules can be applied no matter what the employment contract says.

 

If the employment contract stipulates payments below the HMRC levels or any difference to the HMRC approved mileage guidelines, then a claim can be made to HMRC directly for the difference via a tax return.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or did you want them to come to work first, to start the clock running? What's the benefit in the argument? If the employee only works a set amount of hours in a day, isn't it beneficial to get them to drive straight to the client than coming to work first?

In many cases it is beneficial but the distance of the commute to the 'normal place of business' cannot be claimed. It's because it causes such argument that employers do get to the point of insisting all business journeys start from the office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...