wiggydiggy
Guru
Abuse by some doesnt make the scheme unworthy though, just highlights what we've already established - that the scheme does need some improvements.
c2w - should you have to actually cycle to work?
- Thread starter Sandra6
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Abuse by some doesnt make the scheme unworthy though, just highlights what we've already established - that the scheme does need some improvements.
Where do you buy your electricity from?
thegravestoneman
three wheels on my wagon
- Location
- Castleford, Yorkshire
I've been getting it wrong all these years I 'work to cycle' as no one else pays for my bikes, trikes unicycles etc.damn!
Standoff
Active Member
EON... I think?
Before you tell me how much electricity has risen have a look at council tax bills compared to fifteen years ago!
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Explain how it is fraud?
I've built up such a stable and no fraud was involved.
I'm currently minded to get a cargo bike on C2W, one would be useful having no car of my own, but I've not yet done so simply because I can't see how I would use a cargo bike for the majority of its use as a commuter (largely because I've got better commuting bikes.)
But here's the thing... this thread has made me think The shops are just less than a km away. Work is 20km away. One trip to work and back on a cargo bike buys me 19 return trips to the shops/town and the cargo bike would still be being used for the majority of its use as a commuter. So I'd only need to ride it to work once every 5 or so months to keep within the rules. Ride it to work for a week when it is new and I reckon; job done
I may just get one anyway.
[quote="GregCollins, post: 2286575, member: 5193"]Explain how it is fraud?
I've built up such a stable and no fraud was involved.
.[/quote]
from the official guidance to firms setting up a scheme
If someone takes a bike on the scheme which they have no intention of using for qualifying journeys then that is fraud/tax evasion
I've built up such a stable and no fraud was involved.
.[/quote]
from the official guidance to firms setting up a scheme
If someone takes a bike on the scheme which they have no intention of using for qualifying journeys then that is fraud/tax evasion
JayBear
Regular
- Location
- North Wales
Interesting debate here. (Sorry for jumping in, long time lurker, first time poster)
For my own interest how far does the term journey made between home and workplace stretch? I'm new to this cycling malarkey and have signed up to the c2w scheme as a way of accessing a much more shiny steed that I would otherwise have shelled out for to replace the biffer of an old raliegh that I have resurected from the parentals garage.
My prime useage will be that I will effectivley "walk" my bike to work in the morning ( at least 3 out of 5 mornings is the plan) as I walk to work up a foot path repleat with a generous helping of steep and sharp concrete stairs, and I'm not a morning person at the moment so a morning ride just isn't going to happen yet. Come home time I will don my finest cycling tracksuit bottoms and go for a pedal up the local cycle path that the council and sustrans have kindly provided.
So, I don't 'need' a bike to get to work as I live less than half a mile from work and walk anyway. But I'm hoping that having the 'must use for 50% of journeys to work' caveat will actually guilt me into motivating myself for the actual purpose of having a bike, which is for me to accumulate some fit and loose some fat for the other sports that I play. My rides after work will be from work to home, but are more often than not going to include riding an "out and back" that requires cycling very close past my flat, so I'm not really following the spirit of the scheme, or am I? (I told the bloke who administers our scheme this plan and he didn't cast me out of his office in a mist of righteous fury at my haenous defrauding of the public purse.)
For my own interest how far does the term journey made between home and workplace stretch? I'm new to this cycling malarkey and have signed up to the c2w scheme as a way of accessing a much more shiny steed that I would otherwise have shelled out for to replace the biffer of an old raliegh that I have resurected from the parentals garage.
My prime useage will be that I will effectivley "walk" my bike to work in the morning ( at least 3 out of 5 mornings is the plan) as I walk to work up a foot path repleat with a generous helping of steep and sharp concrete stairs, and I'm not a morning person at the moment so a morning ride just isn't going to happen yet. Come home time I will don my finest cycling tracksuit bottoms and go for a pedal up the local cycle path that the council and sustrans have kindly provided.
So, I don't 'need' a bike to get to work as I live less than half a mile from work and walk anyway. But I'm hoping that having the 'must use for 50% of journeys to work' caveat will actually guilt me into motivating myself for the actual purpose of having a bike, which is for me to accumulate some fit and loose some fat for the other sports that I play. My rides after work will be from work to home, but are more often than not going to include riding an "out and back" that requires cycling very close past my flat, so I'm not really following the spirit of the scheme, or am I? (I told the bloke who administers our scheme this plan and he didn't cast me out of his office in a mist of righteous fury at my haenous defrauding of the public purse.)
... but if you mainly use the bike for getting to work it isn't.
I could have (if my wife would let me) 100 bikes, all got through C2W (difficult as I think you are only allowed 1 bike per loan period). Now, so long as I mainly ride each of them to work during thier loan period, I qualify.
i.e. let's take bike No. 57. If during the course of the loan period (1 year say) I ride it to work twice and go to the shops once on it, It qualifies. There is nothing saying I can't ride any of the other 99 bikes during the rest of the year to get to work. As far as that bike is concerned it has been mainly used to get to work. Now, once the loan period is over and I pay the final settlement, it is no longer a C2W bike & I own it outright so I can do with it what I want.
By my rekoning you qualify. See my previous post. If you ride it home, even on an extended route 5 days / week and ride it twice over the weekend for fun, you are still mainly using it for qualifying journeys.
wiggydiggy
Guru
Apologies for the snip, I did read your post!
I've encouraged some people myself who have very short journeys to use C2W, I think my proudest achievement is someone that swapped from a 1.5 mile drive onto a bicycle - job done lol
Monsieur
Senior member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I'm currently looking at this option to buy a Dawes Karakum - the bike would be used frequently during spring/summer/autumn for longer rides but would also be used now and again for travelling to/from work in the more clement weather.
I don't have access to showers at work so car would still be my main mode.
I don't have access to showers at work so car would still be my main mode.
yes, bending the rules, but not breaking them.
Legally ok. And presumably morally ok if you are happy to pocket the tax saving while expecting a poorly paid nurse to pay her tax to fund your saving.
But that is not the circumstance i initially described..... correction, i have just checked back and my post was poorly worded: I meant buying a fleet of bikes most of which are never intended to be used a a commuter bike. I know folks who already had a bike or few who have bought eg an MTB, a tourer, a nice summer road bike all on the scheme and have never used any of them for commuting. that is abuse of the sysstem pure and simple.
The scheme was intended to encourage non cyclists to cycle. but as with all Tax allowances clever folks find a way to qualify when the scheme was not intended for them.
Not a lot of disagreement from me on most of that.
DRHysted
Guru
- Location
- New Forest
[quote="youngoldbloke, post: 2286359, member: 2740"And maybe a graduated BMI tax for those exceeding the 'safe' levels 
?[/quote]
Please no, I could never hit my "safe" BMI, as it is so inaccurate a measurement. Remember most rugby players are way above their "safe" zone.
?[/quote]Please no, I could never hit my "safe" BMI, as it is so inaccurate a measurement. Remember most rugby players are way above their "safe" zone.
