24 month rule - different ends of London

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

IMHO I don't think the journeys would be considered 'significantly' different and the journey lengths are 'nearly identical' and the sites are only six miles apart

[Old Greg]

And another example to consider... Extra tube stops does not count as substantially different as we have been asked in the past.. How tube stops compare to catching trains I don't know though..



I am thinking if the cost of your journey changes you could be ok with your scenario. If they are much the same then god knows....

As interesting as the theory is I would still put this one through personally.

I'm glad this meets your strict criteria for not repeating previous questions

It is an odd one and if anyone is really interested in the dullness of my commuting life I will PM them the journey details.

[Old Greg]

IMHO I don't think the journeys would be considered 'significantly' different and the journey lengths are 'nearly identical' and the sites are only six miles apart

Even though the journeys are entirely different from the moment I walk out of my front door?

[Scrag Meister]

IMHO I don't think the journeys would be considered 'significantly' different and the journey lengths are 'nearly identical' and the sites are only six miles apart

WLS

[rd409]

Even though the journeys are entirely different from the moment I walk out of my front door?

I agree with Lisa here. What you need to think is not how you make the journeys, but can you go to the old client using the same journey you do now? If yes, then how different is that? If you are doing journey into a London terminal then taking east or west, then it might be different, but considerable part of the journey is same, so tough luck on that. Unless you can prove otherwise. And mind you, you will most probably lose when you try to prove anything with Hector.

[worzelGummidge]

As is usual in cases like this what matters is either legislation, case law or written guidance.

I do not think that there are any laws appropriate to this, please update if this is not the case because I would like to know.

I do not think that there are also any examples in case law.

so, we have the guidance from the usual suspects. They advise the following which I've taken from their website.
Notice the use of " or "


"The new workplace must be geographically different to the previous workplace
or
there must be a significant change to your daily commute to be entitled to claim travel and accommodation expenses."


So, the new workplace needs to Geographically different - or - a change in the route. Not both.


I would argue that there is not a significant different to your commute, but is it a different geographical location.
It is easy to argue that a different City is a different geographical location because well it's a different City.


Now would a London Borough be a different geographical location?


I do not believe that the term "Geographically different" has been defined in law because well it depends on the context used.


I would say that it would be possible to argue either way.
Personally, I would argue the case and use evidence that substantiates that viewpoint.


i.e.:
Is the location managed by a different London Authority?
Is their a difference in car parking prices or House prices.?
Is your car parking ticket awarded by a London region?


When there is no legal reference it is down to interpretation with any available evidence used to back up that viewpoint.

[northernladuk]

Now would a London Borough be a different geographical location?

But some common sense has to be applied. You can be in a different borough by working on the next street. Claiming they are different boroughs but only being 6 miles apart won't wash...

I am just nervous about this stuff about the different method to get to work. I have to drive for 1.5 hours to work in a morning. If I sack this and jump on a bus, metrolink, taxi and can reset the clock? I don't think so. It just doesn't seem right... I can't see how a different method meets any criteria.

[SueEllen]

But some common sense has to be applied. You can be in a different borough by working on the next street. Claiming they are different boroughs but only being 6 miles apart won't wash...

You can be in a different borough by being on the same street. It can depend on the side of the road you are on.

In regards to claiming - 6 miles in London can equal an extra hour in journey time or an extra 5 minutes it depends where you start.

In regards to tube stations being next to each other saying I can't claim from changing from London Bridge to Canary Wharf as they are on the same line a few stops apart but can claim for changing from Bayswater to Queensway as they are on different lines and I have to change is nonsense.

If you cannot easily walk the change in journey which in this case you can't then with the other factors it is a significant change in journey.

[Old Greg]

But some common sense has to be applied. You can be in a different borough by working on the next street. Claiming they are different boroughs but only being 6 miles apart won't wash...

I am just nervous about this stuff about the different method to get to work. I have to drive for 1.5 hours to work in a morning. If I sack this and jump on a bus, metrolink, taxi and can reset the clock? I don't think so. It just doesn't seem right... I can't see how a different method meets any criteria.

In the scenario you put forward, you are changing modes of transport for the purpose of resetting the clock. I am looking at a genuine change of journey driven by a change in location.

As it happens, I have been taking a pretty convoluted route to London for the last 24 months, but inr that makes sense for this particular location in North London. I will now be taking the logical route to London. For my change of journey to be a sham, I would have had to be taking the awkward route for 23 months just so I could eventually change.

Thanks all for continuing contributions.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Even though the journeys are entirely different from the moment I walk out of my front door?

Yes. This is probably the closest example to your situation that I can find in HMR&C's manuals

EIM32282 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: safeguards against abuse: changes to a workplace: example
An employee works for an employer who has several offices close to each other in London. Her employer rotates staff around the offices every 18 months. She works at one office and is then moved to another. She travels to work on the Underground and, although she now gets off ten stops further on than previously, her journey is largely unaltered and the price of her ticket does not change.

The new office is not recognised as a new workplace because the change of site has no substantial effect on her journey to work, see EIM32280. Although her attendance at the new office is expected to be for a limited duration it will not be a temporary workplace. Her expected attendance at the single workplace represented by the two offices will be in a period of continuous work that is expected to exceed 24 months, see EIM32080. The new office is a permanent workplace and she cannot deduct the cost of travel between her home and the new office.