C2W new Guidlines

[PH]

Cycling UK's Matt Mallinder praised the decision, but wants the scheme extending to those out of work such as the elderly and the disabled...

It also needs extending to those on low pay, I worked for an employer who was all set to introduce it till they were told they couldn't offer it to the lowest paid so decided not to offer it to anyone.

Statutorily it can't be if it takes their earnings too low, as with all salary sacrifice schemes I'm afraid. The decision not to offer it to anyone as a result is the one that needs challenging.

If I remember correctly it's a requirement in the regulations for the employer to offer cycle hire to all employees or none, those not eligible for salary sacrifice have to be offered alternatives... it's at that point my previous employer decided it was too much trouble.

[Bonefishblues]

It also needs extending to those on low pay, I worked for an employer who was all set to introduce it till they were told they couldn't offer it to the lowest paid so decided not to offer it to anyone.

Statutorily it can't be if it takes their earnings too low, as with all salary sacrifice schemes I'm afraid. The decision not to offer it to anyone as a result is the one that needs challenging.

If I remember correctly it's a requirement in the regulations for the employer to offer cycle hire to all employees or none, those not eligible for salary sacrifice have to be offered alternatives... it's at that point my previous employer decided it was too much trouble.

One can indeed offer to all, but not all are able to take it up. Semantic debate, but it amounts to the same thing, and the issue is the employer's interpretation. I know because I used to work for an employer who had exactly this policy, which it subsequently, and correctly, overturned.

[PH]

Statutorily it can't be if it takes their earnings too low, as with all salary sacrifice schemes I'm afraid. The decision not to offer it to anyone as a result is the one that needs challenging.

If I remember correctly it's a requirement in the regulations for the employer to offer cycle hire to all employees or none, those not eligible for salary sacrifice have to be offered alternatives... it's at that point my previous employer decided it was too much trouble.

One can indeed offer to all, but not all are able to take it up. Semantic debate, but it amounts to the same thing, and the issue is the employer's interpretation. I know because I used to work for an employer who had exactly this policy, which it subsequently, and correctly, overturned.

I don't know what semantic debate you think there is about it, the regulations seem clear cut.

4.6 The following conditions must also be met:
...
• The offer of the use of hired cycles must be made available across the whole workforce, with no groups of employees being excluded. This does not necessarily have to be through a salary sacrifice arrangement in each case.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... idance.pdf

[Bonefishblues]

Agreed, thank you. That's very clear, as are the other criteria like the 50% of journeys one.

You must offer a scheme to a group who will not be able to salary sacrifice, so they won't be able to take advantage of the advantages of salary sacrifice. I haven't seen such a scheme, so don't know how they might be constructed. Have you got experience of any?

[PH]

Agreed, thank you. That's very clear, as are the other criteria like the 50% of journeys one.

You must offer a scheme to a group who will not be able to salary sacrifice, so they won't be able to take advantage of the advantages of salary sacrifice. I haven't seen such a scheme, so don't know how they might be constructed. Have you got experience of any?

No, my experience is as posted above - an employer deciding not to offer the scheme to anyone because they didn't want to go to the trouble of offering an alternative for those not eligible for salary sacrifice. If they had tried by some means to circumvent that, those excluded would rightly have objected. Have you experience of an employer offering hire cycles to some employers and not others?
The local council did (Maybe still does) offer a choice of a C2W scheme or a hire scheme where payments matched the expenses permitted for use of the cycle, I don't know much about it other than a conversation with the bike shop that supplied.
The Halfords literature highlights that this can be an issue and asks potential customers (Employers) to contact them to discuss the options, I don't know what they are.
Cycling UK's response to this new guidance was that ways should be devised for the unwaged to benefit, I was pointing out that it's also the low paid that can't take advantage and they should have included them.

[Bonefishblues]

Agreed, thank you. That's very clear, as are the other criteria like the 50% of journeys one.

You must offer a scheme to a group who will not be able to salary sacrifice, so they won't be able to take advantage of the advantages of salary sacrifice. I haven't seen such a scheme, so don't know how they might be constructed. Have you got experience of any?

No, my experience is as posted above - an employer deciding not to offer the scheme to anyone because they didn't want to go to the trouble of offering an alternative for those not eligible for salary sacrifice. If they had tried by some means to circumvent that, those excluded would rightly have objected. Have you experience of an employer offering hire cycles to some employers and not others?
The local council did (Maybe still does) offer a choice of a C2W scheme or a hire scheme where payments matched the expenses permitted for use of the cycle, I don't know much about it other than a conversation with the bike shop that supplied.
The Halfords literature highlights that this can be an issue and asks potential customers (Employers) to contact them to discuss the options, I don't know what they are.
Cycling UK's response to this new guidance was that ways should be devised for the unwaged to benefit, I was pointing out that it's also the low paid that can't take advantage and they should have included them.

I think the low waged will find it hardest of all to take advantage of alternative schemes, which to the best of my knowledge have never been designed for them (I'd like to be proved wrong on that).
I have experience of an employer who refused to launch because of the "not available to all" aspect (who subsequently launched as below, following a change in Reward Manager).
I have experience of multiple employers who offered to all, caveated with the Lower Earnings 'warning', but not of any employer who has ever catered to those in that category, and I've historically worked in many where we did have to watch SalSac to ensure that we stopped deductions to ensure Statutory compliance.
I also have no experience of an employer ever checking on 50% usage - come to think of it, I can't remember any who even pointed it out.
The rules say X, but X isn't adhered to, or checked in my own experience.

[PH]

I also have no experience of an employer ever checking on 50% usage - come to think of it, I can't remember any who even pointed it out.
The rules say X, but X isn't adhered to, or checked in my own experience.

With all that experience it's hard to understand why you thought it a matter of semantics and I think most people will see a difference between an employer checking that their employees are adhering to the regulations and initiating a scheme that clearly breaches them.

[Bonefishblues]

I also have no experience of an employer ever checking on 50% usage - come to think of it, I can't remember any who even pointed it out.
The rules say X, but X isn't adhered to, or checked in my own experience.

With all that experience it's hard to understand why you thought it a matter of semantics and I think most people will see a difference between an employer checking that their employees are adhering to the regulations and initiating a scheme that clearly breaches them.

OK it is not semantics. I was completely wrong to label it thus, and I apologise unreservedly to you and others.

The scheme rules are routinely ignored in my practical, non-semantic experience.

Hope that clarifies?