To think my work can’t do this! NO HR

[Butterwine]

So I work in an outreach position and travel across local communities, usually within a 100 mile radius so relatively far. I’ve always used my own car and expensed mileage but now at 45p a mile and petrol in my area at 1:90 as of yesterday I’m really struggling to make even, and find it doesn’t even cover wear and tear. The car is my own. I’ve worked for the company for 2 years.

Anyways, colleague doesn’t drive but does the same job, same pay, same position. She is learning but work pay for all her trains, taxi’s and public transport to visit placements. All paid ahead of time. I decided to ask for this as well, as using my car is just not economical anymore for me and was told a simple, no, you have a car and you must use it.

I was told if I didn’t use it then I’d be missing work and would probably end up with disciplinary etc.

for reference colleague is actually a good friend, no disabilities, no reason behind anything.

AIBU to think they can’t do for one and not the other?

Tell them you’ve sold the car.

I’d tell them your car is broken/in the garage due to all the miles you’re doing and so it’s unusable.

shame your car has broken down and you cant nor wont fix it! in the meanwhile ask them to put into writing that they are not willing to do the same for you and be looking for another job.

Can you just say with petrol rising so fast you are having to sell the car? Or is it possible to negotiate more than 45p/mile?

Give them notice you’re selling the car and when.

Is it in your contract that you must have a car and use it for work? Usually questions like this come down to your agreed conditions. If it’s in your contract, there’s not much you can do. If not, then you need a conversation with your line manager to tell her/him the problem and ask for their help in finding a solution which doesn’t leave you out of pocket.

If, as you say, your colleague is ‘learning’, your employer might be receiving some sort of government support which enables them to cover her travel costs, depending on the exact nature of the arrangement, so I wouldn’t make too much of the apparent discrepancy. ‘Fair’ doesn’t always mean ‘the same’.

Average car does 40-50mpg.

40 miles at .45p is £18

A gallon is £9.

You are still getting fuel and wear and tear. Not as much a you were, but it's still covered.

Thanks for adding that - I wanted to but was being polite! I’m in the public sector and our mileage allowance was actually cut a couple of years ago to 40p, and I’m still covering my costs fine.

We also have a corporate car hire account and can hire cars very cheaply (<£20/day) and claim back the refuelling costs, for journeys over about 100 miles, which is the point at which paying for private car mileage allowance starts costing the organisation more than a hire+refuel. This could be something to raise as a possibility.

This is my stance as well.

She's probably being subsidised externally, but when she's qualified she will have to pay for her own fuel.

If you go more than 45p per mile you will be taxed on it as a benefit in kind by HMRC

It's not as lucrative as it used to be, but unless you drive a real gas guzzler, 45 p a mile covers your fuel and quite a bit left for wear and tear, towards tax and insurance, the latter you pay whether you use your car for work or not.

The 45 ppm is set by HMRC so if they paid you more than this, you'd have to be able to demonstrate that your costs exceed this amount when you've taken off an appropriate proportion for private use (eg if you do the same private miles as business miles, you can include half your petrol, tax, insurance and repair/MOT/maintenance costs in your calculations). Or you have to pay tax on the excess.

However, you have to look at what's in your contract about car provision. If you're not contractually obliged to do work miles in your own car then don't. Ask for a hire car, or to use taxis and public transport.

It all depends on your contract. To give an employee perspective, I hire people for a job where a car is 'essential' but occasionally a great candidate comes along who is learning to drive so we pay for public transport and taxis for a limited time. In our case, there are other disadvantages to them using public transport other than just cost. We'd never agree to it long term as it's not sustainable due to the amount it limits the work they can do.

I think the point here isn't if OP's mileage allowance is ok and covers what it should.

I think the point here is that two same-level employees are being treated differently. (anticipating the answer "no") are you in a union?

(a union can help you draft a letter to your employer outlining why this unequal treatment doesn't fly, and good suggestions of how you and they should handle it)

Still not a bad idea - you'd still be earning more despite the extra taxation.

I dare say in the past 45p more than covered both mileage and seat and tear. I doubt very much that it is not covering it now, what you mean is you aren’t getting as much of a “profit” as you used to. I would take a guess that you were asked about having your own transport before you were employed and as such are expected to have it.

Clearly some other arrangement has been come to with the other employee. And I am sure it is not much fun travelling around on public transport to her appointments.

Personally I think you are getting the better deal by being able to claim for mileage. Yes it's not as lucrative as it was due to the cost of fuel but it still more than covers the cost of fuel and contributes to wear and tear. Where as your colleague gets reimbursed fairs.

45p a mile isn’t a bad rate at all. And your colleague is learning to drive so the company can view her situation as temporary, what you are proposing is to just use public transport indefinitely and I can see why they aren’t agreeing to that. Your situations aren’t the same.

This.

Your costs are increasing - so should theirs.

Also, there will be a member classified as 'HR' there has to be.

Average car does 40-50mpg

Since when?!

I drive a Mazda 3. Not a big car, not a gas guzzler etc. Its a petrol car. I've never got it to average more than 36 mpg over time, unless I'm solely driving motorways, which wont be the case for an outreach worker in the community who will be driving on local roads.

"This.

Your costs are increasing - so should theirs.

Also, there will be a member classified as 'HR' there has to be."

The company are using Hmrc approved rates. Anything above that and it's taxable.

I don't know exactly what my car does, it's stated as something like 50-55 MPG, it's a small petrol car.

What I do know is that it costs about £60 to fill up from absolutely empty and I get just over 400 miles from that amount of fuel, so 15 p a mile.

Which leaves 30 p a mile as a contribution towards all my other motoring costs if I use it for work, which I occasionally do, but we have a similar rule to a PP, where you have to use a hire car for trips over about 100 miles, because then it's cheaper to hire a car and pay for fuel only.

The average car might do 40-50mpg combined but if you're doing lots of city, stop/start type driving you won't get anywhere near that.

My car can get nearly 60mpg on a good day on a motorway run but driving in heavy traffic in hilly Bristol I sometimes only get about 25mpg (and I drive as economically as I can- no pedal to the metal driving here!).

So 45p/mile (or the 40p/mile I actually get at work) would barely cover my fuel, let alone the extra cost of having business insurance so I can use my car for work or the wear and tear, extra depreciation for having higher mileage etc. Luckily I don't have to use my car for work often.

DH gets a company car allowance (takes the cash instead of a company car) so only gets 25p a mile. No way would that cover fuel for city mileage.

The 45 ppm is designed to cover fuel and wear and tear.

I drive a Ford C-max. I only do city driving and get 46mpg.

My dad drives a quashai and his mpg is about the same.

I thought it was standard mpg for newer cars.

I had to Google a mazda 3, but it does look like it's one of the lesser efficient cars.

but that is the point...is the Op out of pocket? sounds like no. is her colleague out of pocket? also no. Are they therefore being treated equally? answer yes.