Cyclescheme

Thanks, tom.

Tell them that you'll join the LCC (and provide proof of this) as that would automatically give you 3rd party insurance, which is what they'd be interested in to avoid getting sued.

I found that keeping up the hassling works.

[advertising]Your company can also become a corporate LCC member and get discount membership for employees of the company, which takes care of the third party insurance issue even more efficiently than if employees joined as private individuals.

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=43

[/advertising]

Oliver
LCC

"We can't do it because of possible legal ramifications. There have been some cases where the employer has been held liable for damages as they techinically own the bike."

As always, ask them to cite their references. I suspect they can't but if they do then those references can be used to determine preventative conditions (LCC membership) that would make the scheme viable again.

FYI - Wiggle do their own cycle scheme with the same benefits. I'm just sorting it out at the minute, they appear to deal with all the admin; it looks pretty straight forward.

This was the Head of Corporate and Social Responsibility's reply to my request. My Director was in favour, but couldn't change 'policy'.

[FONT=Helv][SIZE=2][FONT=Helv][SIZE=2]We've looked into 'Ride To Work' schemes at great length on-and-off over the last few months, as well as seeking input from other nearby large corporate users of such schemes: Barclaycard's international HQ at Pavilion Drive, and a large accountancy firm (who wish to remain anonymous) that I know personally.
Taken at face value from all of the PR that these schemes push at us, it seems a sensible and worthwhile thing to do. However, detailed investigation (and bitter first-hand experience from Barclaycard and the accountancy firm) has revealed that these schemes are at best an inordinate amount of additional admin, and at worst are a huge potential liability both financially and legally. Barclaycard have abandoned the scheme due to the complexity of the administration burden. The accountancy firm faced a lengthy and expensive legal battle when one of their employees had an accident while riding home from work on a 'Ride To Work' bike, and was trying to sue the Company for personal injury - the case was eventually dropped by the claimant but not without acrimony from both sides.
From our own findings, and from the bad experiences of Barclaycard and the accountancy firm, we have decided not to use any such schemes for the foreseeable future.
The employee might be able to acquire a tax-free bike at the end of the scheme, but there are precious few other benefits to the Company. Worse, there are significant legal risks and admin costs imposed upon the Company.
The main reasons for not running the scheme are:
1 The Company is effectively entering into a private credit agreement with each employee that wants to use the scheme. The Company buys the employee's own choice of bike, and the employee then 'rents' the bike from the Company for 12months before making a final settlement payment to transfer ownership of the bike from the Company. The financing and regulation of any form of credit agreement has complex and heavyweight legal implications (which funnily enough none of the schemes actually inform employers about in advance!), which potentially puts the Company at risk of non-compliance.
Such a credit agreement scheme places additional admin burden upon the Company to check and administer the payment-recovery system from each employee.
There are also other issues to consider in the event that the employee leaves the Company during the 12month 'rental' period. We would need authority to collect the total outstanding value owed against the bike by the employee, or for the employee to return the bike to the Company, but we only have limited rights of recovering the bike in the event that the employee does not pay.
The employee must insure the full value of the bike against theft during the 12month period of 'rental'. Again, if the bike were stolen but not insured, the 'Ride To Work' agreements do not provide the Company with cast-iron grounds with which to recover the remainder of the bike's outstanding value from the employee.
The Company would effectively be financing a company-provided vehicle (albeit a bicycle) for the 12months of 'rental' to the employee until the employee has made all of their finance payments back to the Company. Until such time as the employee has made all payments the Company still owns the bike, which potentially transfers additional liability onto ourselves in the event of the employee having an accident whilst riding the bike to/from work. This liability is in terms of both personal injury and third-party liability.
The employee has an obligation to ride the bike to work at least 12 times during the 12month period of 'rental' from the Company. Related to item 5, above, this means that the Company (as the 'hirer') is imposing an obligation that the employee must ride to/from work several times. Cyclists have one of the highest accident rates of any road-user group, and therefore the Company could be construed as putting the employee at risk by obliging them to ride to work several times per year.
Finally, under the terms of the Ride To Work scheme, the Company has an additional obligation to provide breakfast for any employee riding into work on a bike financed under this scheme. Again, this is additional expense and admin that we don't wish to incur.
Apologies for the length of this response - I bet you wish you hadn't asked now! - but it is important that you are fully aware of all of the hidden pitfalls. These schemes are heavily promoted by bike manufacturers/suppliers as an additional sales tool and are pitched at employees, focusing on the end-user benefits but failing to mention the significant and onerous administration and legal burdens placed upon the employer.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

This was the Head of Corporate and Social Responsibility's reply to my request. My Director was in favour, but couldn't change 'policy'.

[FONT=Helv][SIZE=2][FONT=Helv][SIZE=2]We've looked into 'Ride To Work' schemes at great length on-and-off over the last few months, as well as seeking input from other nearby large corporate users of such schemes: Barclaycard's international HQ at Pavilion Drive, and a large accountancy firm (who wish to remain anonymous) that I know personally.
Taken at face value from all of the PR that these schemes push at us, it seems a sensible and worthwhile thing to do. However, detailed investigation (and bitter first-hand experience from Barclaycard and the accountancy firm) has revealed that these schemes are at best an inordinate amount of additional admin, and at worst are a huge potential liability both financially and legally. Barclaycard have abandoned the scheme due to the complexity of the administration burden. The accountancy firm faced a lengthy and expensive legal battle when one of their employees had an accident while riding home from work on a 'Ride To Work' bike, and was trying to sue the Company for personal injury - the case was eventually dropped by the claimant but not without acrimony from both sides.
From our own findings, and from the bad experiences of Barclaycard and the accountancy firm, we have decided not to use any such schemes for the foreseeable future.
The employee might be able to acquire a tax-free bike at the end of the scheme, but there are precious few other benefits to the Company. Worse, there are significant legal risks and admin costs imposed upon the Company.
The main reasons for not running the scheme are:
1 The Company is effectively entering into a private credit agreement with each employee that wants to use the scheme. The Company buys the employee's own choice of bike, and the employee then 'rents' the bike from the Company for 12months before making a final settlement payment to transfer ownership of the bike from the Company. The financing and regulation of any form of credit agreement has complex and heavyweight legal implications (which funnily enough none of the schemes actually inform employers about in advance!), which potentially puts the Company at risk of non-compliance.
Such a credit agreement scheme places additional admin burden upon the Company to check and administer the payment-recovery system from each employee.
There are also other issues to consider in the event that the employee leaves the Company during the 12month 'rental' period. We would need authority to collect the total outstanding value owed against the bike by the employee, or for the employee to return the bike to the Company, but we only have limited rights of recovering the bike in the event that the employee does not pay.
The employee must insure the full value of the bike against theft during the 12month period of 'rental'. Again, if the bike were stolen but not insured, the 'Ride To Work' agreements do not provide the Company with cast-iron grounds with which to recover the remainder of the bike's outstanding value from the employee.
The Company would effectively be financing a company-provided vehicle (albeit a bicycle) for the 12months of 'rental' to the employee until the employee has made all of their finance payments back to the Company. Until such time as the employee has made all payments the Company still owns the bike, which potentially transfers additional liability onto ourselves in the event of the employee having an accident whilst riding the bike to/from work. This liability is in terms of both personal injury and third-party liability.
The employee has an obligation to ride the bike to work at least 12 times during the 12month period of 'rental' from the Company. Related to item 5, above, this means that the Company (as the 'hirer') is imposing an obligation that the employee must ride to/from work several times. Cyclists have one of the highest accident rates of any road-user group, and therefore the Company could be construed as putting the employee at risk by obliging them to ride to work several times per year.
Finally, under the terms of the Ride To Work scheme, the Company has an additional obligation to provide breakfast for any employee riding into work on a bike financed under this scheme. Again, this is additional expense and admin that we don't wish to incur.
Apologies for the length of this response - I bet you wish you hadn't asked now! - but it is important that you are fully aware of all of the hidden pitfalls. These schemes are heavily promoted by bike manufacturers/suppliers as an additional sales tool and are pitched at employees, focusing on the end-user benefits but failing to mention the significant and onerous administration and legal burdens placed upon the employer.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

bollocks - looks like they're totally anti. Definitely NOT showing my HR department this!

They do however have a point. As a finance company who has financed similar schemes, I have to agree that for the employer there are some significant downsides. Whilst its a great scheme for the employee, I think it would be almost impossible to convince an employer who was aware of the above and wasn't already minded to provide this as a benefit to go forward. The issue is that there really isn't anything in it for the employer, (aside from the Employers NI saving - and that is easily outweighed on a small scheme by the admin and legal costs).

sorry if this has been suggested already, but have you thought about contacting cyclescheme directly...explain you're having problems with your employer and ask if they can help? i'm sure they face these types of resistance all the time and might be able to provide testimonials and other responses to standard company knock backs. i've found them super helpful in all my dealings...numbers on the website

sorry if this has been suggested already, but have you thought about contacting cyclescheme directly...explain you're having problems with your employer and ask if they can help? i'm sure they face these types of resistance all the time and might be able to provide testimonials and other responses to standard company knock backs. i've found them super helpful in all my dealings...numbers on the website

Crimsonape you should bulletise your comapny's concerns and email them to cyclescheme... be interesting to see their replies

Seriously, after reading that long response - quite a lot of it is easy to argue I think. In a nutshell...

The recovery of money/bike is easy - they manage payroll (or very likely outsource it) so that is easy enough to recover funds and to ensure that payments are being made.

Insurance - draft an internal policy on the use of the scheme that requires employees to get it and by signing it you release them of liability if you don't have the insurance

Riding to work - make that a pledge as part of the signed policy above

Breakfast - are you f**king kidding me?

No benefits to the company? It's about benefits to the employees. You are dealing with the wrong person.

Send the arguments to Cyclescheme and see if they can help out.

They do however have a point. As a finance company who has financed similar schemes, I have to agree that for the employer there are some significant downsides. Whilst its a great scheme for the employee, I think it would be almost impossible to convince an employer who was aware of the above and wasn't already minded to provide this as a benefit to go forward. The issue is that there really isn't anything in it for the employer, (aside from the Employers NI saving - and that is easily outweighed on a small scheme by the admin and legal costs).

I think it's impossible to argue with a company if that's their attitude. Significant benefits fro employees should be seen as a benefit for the company! There IS something in ot for the employer - fitter, happier staff with nice shiny bikes from 14. Plus the NI saving.

So my work should be giving me breakfast after I ride to work, amazing I'm going to HR to ask where I get mine!

anyone buying a bike for more than £1k (including me) would, in my opinion, taking the mickey. I want to see a good 20% of our office cycling to work, that way I can argue for better parking, at the expense of the one guy who gets an amazing bike. Purely utilitarian.

oops. instantly applied for a Trek Madone... only thought of myself !

Significant benefits fro employees should be seen as a benefit for the company! There IS something in ot for the employer - fitter, happier staff with nice shiny bikes from 14. Plus the NI saving.

As I said, an employer who is minded to offer a benefit to the employee may be willing to accept that providing it won't be free to them. If they are looking at it from a purely financial point of view, then, it's not so easy.

can you also play the 'green' card? maybe larger companies who are increasing conscious of their carbon footprint, etc can claim savings against car emissions vs cycling (give or take the odd fart when straining up to speed from stand still). increasingly carbon and financial issues will become linked either from the 'being seen to be doing good' angle or from carbon trading.

Wow, that guy is amazingly mis-informed on some of those points. His friend at the "large accountancy firm" obviously has nothing to do with personal tax or - equally likely - was dropped on his head as a child.

Some of my comments should probably be confirmed by a lawyer (I know some hang around here, trying to steal people's souls) but the purely tax stuff is right. I think that you could probably cut the swearing out and beat down his argument if reason was all that it needed, although I suspect that they may have made their minds up.

The accountancy firm faced a lengthy and expensive legal battle when one of their employees had an accident while riding home from work on a 'Ride To Work' bike, and was trying to sue the Company for personal injury - the case was eventually dropped by the claimant but not without acrimony from both sides.

Some people are just twats. The guy could have been sliding down the bannister at work, fallen off and tried to sue.

The Company is effectively entering into a private credit agreement with each employee that wants to use the scheme. The Company buys the employee's own choice of bike, and the employee then 'rents' the bike from the Company for 12months before making a final settlement payment to transfer ownership of the bike from the Company. The financing and regulation of any form of credit agreement has complex and heavyweight legal implications (which funnily enough none of the schemes actually inform employers about in advance!), which potentially puts the Company at risk of non-compliance.
Such a credit agreement scheme places additional admin burden upon the Company to check and administer the payment-recovery system from each employee.
There are also other issues to consider in the event that the employee leaves the Company during the 12month 'rental' period. We would need authority to collect the total outstanding value owed against the bike by the employee, or for the employee to return the bike to the Company, but we only have limited rights of recovering the bike in the event that the employee does not pay.

You get the proforma credit agreement stuff from Cyclescheme and - unless I'm very much mistaken - if you fail to give the bike back then they could just do you for theft or take you to county court. If you are a member of almost any professional body they could also approach them to bollock you for "conduct unbecoming".

In short, lending you a bike is no more risky than giving you a work laptop.

As for the payroll thing, it's just one entry. It's not hard. Check if your company do the childcare vouchers - it's the same idea so if they have the administrative means to administer that, they can administer this.

The employee must insure the full value of the bike against theft during the 12month period of 'rental'. Again, if the bike were stolen but not insured, the 'Ride To Work' agreements do not provide the Company with cast-iron grounds with which to recover the remainder of the bike's outstanding value from the employee.
The Company would effectively be financing a company-provided vehicle (albeit a bicycle) for the 12months of 'rental' to the employee until the employee has made all of their finance payments back to the Company. Until such time as the employee has made all payments the Company still owns the bike, which potentially transfers additional liability onto ourselves in the event of the employee having an accident whilst riding the bike to/from work. This liability is in terms of both personal injury and third-party liability.

In the contract you sign you normally have a bit which says "If it gets nicked I'll either replace it (i.e. via insurance) or give you the cash".

The third party liability thing is covered by the LCC and you could just get people to sign a waiver re: personal injury while commuting thing.

The employee has an obligation to ride the bike to work at least 12 times during the 12month period of 'rental' from the Company. Related to item 5, above, this means that the Company (as the 'hirer') is imposing an obligation that the employee must ride to/from work several times. Cyclists have one of the highest accident rates of any road-user group, and therefore the Company could be construed as putting the employee at risk by obliging them to ride to work several times per year.

WRONG. This is so fucking wrong and it shows that whoever they talked to at the "large accounting firm" doesn't know shit. The bike qualifies as used for business if the majority of its use is for commuting. None of this "12 times a year" crap, just more commuting than non-commuting.

This in itself is very open to interpretation too, as it could be commuting miles/recreational miles or trips. I could be using it mainly for commuting if I was doing 10 miles 5 days a week on getting to and from work but then doing two 100 mile rides over the weekend.

Finally, under the terms of the Ride To Work scheme, the Company has an additional obligation to provide breakfast for any employee riding into work on a bike financed under this scheme. Again, this is additional expense and admin that we don't wish to incur.

Again this is wrong beyond belief. They are able to provide a benefit for cyclists without giving rise to a benefit in kind charges re: the provision of food, although I think that the frequency of it could have an impact.

Basically, if your work want to have a cycle to work day and give everyone that does it a croissant, they can do without it having to go on your P11D.

Apologies for the length of this response - I bet you wish you hadn't asked now! - but it is important that you are fully aware of all of the hidden pitfalls. These schemes are heavily promoted by bike manufacturers/suppliers as an additional sales tool and are pitched at employees, focusing on the end-user benefits but failing to mention the significant and onerous administration and legal burdens placed upon the employer.

So, in summary, the main pitfalls are:

1. The payroll department are lazy
   
2. Your boss' mate is thick
   
3. They are too myopic to realise that these schemes save them 12.5% of the cost of the bikes in the Employers National Insurance Contributions that they would otherwise have had to make. That's (potentially) £125 per participant, which is waaaay more than the minor payroll changes would cost.
   

Cyclists have one of the highest accident rates of any road-user group
This is sadly true. However, what isn't included is that those of higher risk are considerably higher, whereas those of a lower risk are only marginally so. Fact: If you remove all road traffic accidents statistics generated by London and Birmingham, cycling becomes safer than driving. Admittedly that argument doesn't stack up if you're trying to get cyclescheme at an employers in London, however, Fact 2 does. Fact 2: If you only compare cyclists who have undergone some basic cycle training cycling becomes safer than driving. A cycle training caveat would therefore be construed as reducing employee commuting risk by obliging them to ride to work, should such an fictitious obligation actually exist.

It's all a matter of statistical spin.

Fact: If you remove all road traffic accidents statistics generated by London and Birmingham, cycling becomes safer than driving.

Ah, but what happens if you remove motorway accidents (which cyclists are clearly removed from anyway)?

I'm not starting an argument, I'm just interested in how the stats would swing.

I wouldn't know on that one.

Motorways have the lowest accident rate of all roads (I believe) so removing them would certainly make driving more dangerous per mile.

Surely it depends on whether it is measured in incidents per journey or incidents per mile?

Accident statistics (especially those involving cyclists) are generally pretty flawed. A cyclist can rear end something without anyone knowing (or at least not really being recorded).

The only reliable statistics are fatalities. Even injury accidents are not reliably recorded.

I work for a very large global company with over 15,000 employee worldwide. My Company does offer a fantastic range of benefits in cluding the childcare vouchers, discounts on high street shops, interest free train ticket loans (mine would cost over £1,200 per year which would be equally as hard/easy to recover the outstanding balance if I left before the 12 months were up), advice on financial or home problems through a 3rd party company at no cost to me and all the free training I want (within reason). I have tried to argue that I have cycled to work for over 15 years and have had only 1 accident which prevented me from being on time (bendy bus overtaking me and cutting into a bus stop). I'm happy to continue buying my own breakfast and have always insured my road bikes for both the value of the bike and 3rd party.
I had a director put forward my case and still was told sorry, but no.
My wife's company will offer her a season ticket loan and up to £500 in halfords vouchers as well. She doesn't even have to ride it to work. They won't let her get a bike for me, though.

She doesn't even have to ride it to work. They won't let her get a bike for me, though.

Do they have to know that its for you?

Do they have to know that its for you?

if she is 5' 2" and he is 6' 4" then it may seem odd.

I work for a very large global company with over 15,000 employee worldwide. My Company does offer a fantastic range of benefits in cluding the childcare vouchers, discounts on high street shops, interest free train ticket loans (mine would cost over £1,200 per year which would be equally as hard/easy to recover the outstanding balance if I left before the 12 months were up), advice on financial or home problems through a 3rd party company at no cost to me and all the free training I want (within reason). I have tried to argue that I have cycled to work for over 15 years and have had only 1 accident which prevented me from being on time (bendy bus overtaking me and cutting into a bus stop). I'm happy to continue buying my own breakfast and have always insured my road bikes for both the value of the bike and 3rd party.
I had a director put forward my case and still was told sorry, but no.
My wife's company will offer her a season ticket loan and up to £500 in halfords vouchers as well. She doesn't even have to ride it to work. They won't let her get a bike for me, though.

I get all your benefits and a cycle2work scheme as well. There must be a way that you can ask them to add this benefit, do you have a staff consulting committee that you could speak to?