24 month rule - different ends of London

[SueEllen]

And if his ticket price changes?

I think we have gone full circle there.

[northernladuk]

As their rental accommodation is their only home then they have permanantly re-located. They have just done it themselves because they know they can't get any money from the government for doing this.

A lot of people in London will put up with a commute of up to an hour if the commute goes over that they move house if they are renting or find another job if they can't.

Your arguing the toss now and you know it. Renting is much easier to do than relocating home... and again we are stuck in this micro argument about London forgetting the term substantial. It is easy to pick random examples and try make them fit.

[Old Greg]

I think we have gone full circle there.

I know but he usually gets there eventually.

[Moscow Mule]

Your arguing the toss now and you know it. Renting is much easier to do than relocating home... and again we are stuck in this micro argument about London forgetting the term substantial. It is easy to pick random examples and try make them fit.

Just because you commute miles, doesn't mean other people's journeys to different parts of London aren't substantially different.

It's easy to nit-pick holes in perfectly valid arguments.

[Old Greg]

We are going in circles, indeed. It comes down to:

Sometimes it may be difficult to decide whether a change of workplace should be recognised. The basic principle is that a change in the location or the boundaries of a workplace will be recognised as a change of workplace where the change has a substantial effect on:

the journey an employee has to make to get to work and, in particular,
the cost of that journey.
In practice you should recognise the change of workplace in all cases except where the change has made no significant difference to the commuting journey.

On that basis I will be putting it through as an allowable expense, because:

- There appears to be an assumption that changes in workplace should be recognised except in certain circumstances
- My journey is completely different
- My journey is significantly cheaper
- The change to the journey is not an artifice (it would be a bit odd to be reducing the cost as an artifice).

Thanks all for a great debate. Happy to continue if anyone hasn't had enough.

[SueEllen]

Just because you commute miles, doesn't mean other people's journeys to different parts of London aren't substantially different.

It's easy to nit-pick holes in perfectly valid arguments.

To be fair lots of people who don't live in London don't realise the difference in travel in getting to two places that may be a mile apart.

One of the first answers stated that if you need to go to a different mainline rail terminus it's a different journey.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

We are going in circles, indeed. It comes down to:



On that basis I will be putting it through as an allowable expense, because:

- There appears to be an assumption that changes in workplace should be recognised except in certain circumstances
- My journey is completely different
- My journey is significantly cheaper
- The change to the journey is not an artifice (it would be a bit odd to be reducing the cost as an artifice).

Thanks all for a great debate. Happy to continue if anyone hasn't had enough.

The cost of the journey has changed because the method of travel has changed but the distance you are travelling and the time it takes to get to each location has not changed substantially so I personally think you would have a hard job convincing HMR&C that the expense was allowable. If you think about it you could affect the cost of a journey by travelling first class or by hiring an Aston Martin (mmmmmmm ) so I am not sure that, in this case, the cost reduction is wholly relevant.

[Old Greg]

The cost of the journey has changed because the method of travel has changed but the distance you are travelling and the time it takes to get to each location has not changed substantially so I personally think you would have a hard job convincing HMR&C that the expense was allowable. If you think about it you could affect the cost of a journey by travelling first class or by hiring an Aston Martin (mmmmmmm ) so I am not sure that, in this case, the cost reduction is wholly relevant.

Thanks again for the input, Lisa.

But the method of travel has changed because the destination has changed. The examples that HMRC gives where a change of workplace is not in fact a change of location are much more narrowly defined than my case, so I'm reasonably confident I can argue the case.

[northernladuk]

Thanks again for the input, Lisa.

But the method of travel has changed because the destination has changed. The examples that HMRC gives where a change of workplace is not in fact a change of location are much more narrowly defined than my case, so I'm reasonably confident I can argue the case.

Forgetting about arguing about the exact details of this, a strong feeling tells me this won't be allowed but due to the complexity of it I would take the same approach as you and see if the same arguments would put HMRC off at the time I got investigated. I wouldn't feel I have ripped the system off, instead taking the best option for me in an very complex system. If I lost I would put my hands up and pay up without feeling I have been caught blatantly ripping the system off. It would be right for my business to take the chance and let HMRC sort their own mess up when they need to.

[Old Greg]

Forgetting about arguing about the exact details of this, a strong feeling tells me this won't be allowed but due to the complexity of it I would take the same approach as you and see if the same arguments would put HMRC off at the time I got investigated. I wouldn't feel I have ripped the system off, instead taking the best option for me in an very complex system. If I lost I would put my hands up and pay up without feeling I have been caught blatantly ripping the system off. It would be right for my business to take the chance and let HMRC sort their own mess up when they need to.

As it happens, I am as a rule very conservative about what I claim (don't claim subsistence, don't put my phone through the business).

It is a bit grey and I respect lots of people disagree, bt it seems simple to me:

My client is changing.
My workplace is changing.
My old route to London would be too lengthy and expensive to make sense for the new location.
My new route is different from the moment I walk out the door.
My new journey is significantly cheaper.

It may of course be true that HMRC would disagree, but they would disagree about a lot of our IR35 status - and they would lose in a tribunal. BTW am not saying I want to go to a tirbunal over this but you get the point.

It would help of course if their examples tested the grey areas a little.