Thoughts on negotiating expenses for travel?

[psychocandy]

Its a funny one...... I'm one of those who live in an area where normally there's a not a huge amount of work. Remote working has opened things up massively for me......

I found that semi-local gigs (which would be bristol for me - still a PITA 1 hr drive and possibly nowhere to park) were keen to get you to agree to say 2 days on site "in a few months". Hmmm I might have jumped at this in the past but now there are 100% WFH gigs then not so keen.

Current gig is prob 2 1/2 hours drive so way too far. Its not happening. To be fair, they've no interest and have taken on people even further away than me. I just can't see them ever being able to insist everyone comes into the office. I, for one, would just say no thanks.

Then again, I think you've got to be a little flexible. One site visit every few weeks aint gonna kill you. Big difference than every week.
Been to site once (and to be fair they said it was optional). One long day with early start, late finish and £32 on the train - so what?

I just think those who kick off and say "Never going to site ever" are possibly going to spoil things for others.

[PerfectStorm]

I write into all of my contracts that my company determines where the work is performed. Kinda amazed to find people not writing this bit in, but who will happily die on the hill of weekly payments.

[sirPorkPie]

To those who advised I travel back in time and renegotiate this issue I wanted to say... good point!

But in all seriousness, thanks for those trying to help. I'll answer the questions below...

My contract is with an agency (Reed). They are the 'intermediary', between me and the Client.

The contract between myself and Reed makes no reference to place of work.

I pushed Reed on this, they said it's between me and the client to discuss. I've asked where in the contract this is referenced, as it seems reckless to give so much discretion to the client on HOW work is performed, especially given it's an outside ir-35 role. Awaiting response to this.

The commute is about 3 hours there, 3 hours back. Again, the length of the commute isn't a problem. I get work done during this period (documentation heavy role). It's the expense in particular that I'm trying to address. Cost is about £200 per day of commuting (£1k-1.6k a month). Season tickets aren't an option, as should they cancel the need to attend (which does happen frequently), it can negate the savings.

Agree on sentiment that a balance of WFH/office is appropriate. I'm not looking for 100% WFH here, just some accommodation for the costs or flexibility on the mandate to attend the office under same terms impost on permies... especially as I'm outside ir-35, surely? I thought that was a key distinction of IR35?

[northernladuk]

I pushed Reed on this, they said it's between me and the client to discuss. I've asked where in the contract this is referenced, as it seems reckless to give so much discretion to the client on HOW work is performed, especially given it's an outside ir-35 role. Awaiting response to this.

So there is your answer. They were WFH but now want you back in so there is no way they are going to pay your travel. Travel and location have nothing to do with HOW the work is performed and client asking you to come in to site is nothing to do with D&C either. It's just professional courtesy you working as your supplier works. No IR35 flags here.

The commute is about 3 hours there, 3 hours back. Again, the length of the commute isn't a problem. I get work done during this period (documentation heavy role). It's the expense in particular that I'm trying to address. Cost is about £200 per day of commuting (£1k-1.6k a month). Season tickets aren't an option, as should they cancel the need to attend (which does happen frequently), it can negate the savings.

So you have to look at options that work for you and then negotiate with the client. More days but every two weeks instead would half your travel expenses. Well not really as you'll need hotel/B&B but it would be much less or something like that. Sometimes there are costs involved in earning over 100k a year I am afraid. This is an unfortunate situation which could be avoided but it is what it is now.
Just remember the cost of the company paying your travel means it doesn't hit your pocket to the same amount. A discount granted but it's still not the same.

Agree on sentiment that a balance of WFH/office is appropriate. I'm not looking for 100% WFH here, just some accommodation for the costs or flexibility on the mandate to attend the office under same terms impost on permies... especially as I'm outside ir-35, surely? I thought that was a key distinction of IR35?

You are looking at the mandate wrong. It's everyone doing business with the client. Permies AND contractors. You aren't being treated as an employee. A supplier being asked to attend client site is nothing to do with IR35. The only distinction here is that permies are commuting, you are doing business travel which is why you can put it through the books.

Just because you are outside IR35 it doesn't give you carte blanche to say no to the client on everything they want and you don't. Some things like taking on extra work, attending general client functions etc but requests to attend site no. I mean, every contractor on earth has had to attend client sites in some form or nothing, as has every consultancy. It doesn't suddenly become a key IR35 issue because it doesn't suit you. Need to brush up on IR35 as well I'd say sorry.

Suck it up, negotiate the best deal and then ask for more money at renewal.

[rocktronAMP]

To those who advised I travel back in time and renegotiate this issue I wanted to say... good point!

But in all seriousness, thanks for those trying to help. I'll answer the questions below...

My contract is with an agency (Reed). They are the 'intermediary', between me and the Client.

The contract between myself and Reed makes no reference to place of work.

I pushed Reed on this, they said it's between me and the client to discuss. I've asked where in the contract this is referenced, as it seems reckless to give so much discretion to the client on HOW work is performed, especially given it's an outside ir-35 role. Awaiting response to this.

The commute is about 3 hours there, 3 hours back. Again, the length of the commute isn't a problem. I get work done during this period (documentation heavy role). It's the expense in particular that I'm trying to address. Cost is about £200 per day of commuting (£1k-1.6k a month). Season tickets aren't an option, as should they cancel the need to attend (which does happen frequently), it can negate the savings.

Agree on sentiment that a balance of WFH/office is appropriate. I'm not looking for 100% WFH here, just some accommodation for the costs or flexibility on the mandate to attend the office under same terms impost on permies... especially as I'm outside ir-35, surely? I thought that was a key distinction of IR35?

*Outside IR35*

Do you have a UK limited company? If yes, then travel, car parking, fuel and train fare, Oystercards, and working away from home overnight stays in a hotel and morning / evening sustenance expenses are legitimate costs. You claim all of these costs back as expenses from YOUR LIMITED PSC LTD and ensure you set in this in the annual accounts. (a.k.a speak to a rep at Crunch /SJD or equivalent contract accountant who can explain the latest HMRC views).

I guess you need to decide on the commitment of your time/effort in terms of your performance. Will a regular 6 hours commute effect your drive? For most people, it will. Performance is related to quality of work. If work suffers, then the client is not going to be impressed, and you should not be either. Decide early on the actual emotional cost of this current contract, if it is in going to be a killer, then start looking for a grand exit. But if you continue to take the money, you, and you alone, have to be genuinely responsible and accountable for your performance and service for work.

[WTFH]

To those who advised I travel back in time and renegotiate this issue I wanted to say... good point!

How long is your contract for?
How long has it been going on?

[d000hg]

I think you are right in some circumstances but I don't think forgetting to ask in a world that is moving from 100% WFH to a flexible presence is that valid. You'd have to have your head firmly in the ground not to see the noise in the news about back to office so more valid would be to clarify the situation first. Even in the old days where WFH was fairly uncommon it was good sense to check.

They said he started mid-lockdown, which was before this shift back to the office had started. Although they don't say which lockdown. I think if you took on a lockdown contract that while you probably should have made sure you were covered for this eventuality, if it was advertised as a remote role and/or no specific mention is made of the topic you still have reasonable grounds to push for something. You might have to be prepared to walk if they won't budge though.

How long is the contract, OP? And when did it start?

[northernladuk]

They said he started mid-lockdown, which was before this shift back to the office had started. Although they don't say which lockdown. I think if you took on a lockdown contract that while you probably should have made sure you were covered for this eventuality, if it was advertised as a remote role and/or no specific mention is made of the topic you still have reasonable grounds to push for something. You might have to be prepared to walk if they won't budge though.

How long is the contract, OP? And when did it start?

I get what you are saying but we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Lockdown was always going to be a temporary measure to combat a global pandemic. It was going to end sometime and the working situation would change again. To what we couldn't have known but still, that's no reason to assume 'no mention' means the status quo will go on forever. To take a gig in a lockdown situation and expect the working conditions to never change is a tad naïve in my mind.

The OP is in a better position than they would have been had their been no pandemic. They got a gig they wouldn't have been able to get normally. To then expect the client to cover some fairly insignificant costs (in the greater scheme) for a gig they wouldn't have been able to have seems to be going too far. The OP has saved more on travel in the last 2 years+ than the expenses for this gig so it's having your cake and eating it. That said I can see why dh000g and others might have a different view so I'll leave it there.

[PerfectStorm]

Lockdown was always going to be a temporary measure to combat a global pandemic. It was going to end sometime and the working situation would change again. To what we couldn't have known but still, that's no reason to assume 'no mention' means the status quo will go on forever. To take a gig in a lockdown situation and expect the working conditions to never change is a tad naïve in my mind.

The world progresses and good ideas stick around after they're initially needed. We have women in work now because they entered work out of necessity during WW2. When the war finished, they didn't all go back to the home. The same will be the case with WFH - it took a pandemic to drag businesses kicking and screaming to something they should've been doing years ago, but hadn't, because of "how it had always been done". Now they can try to row back, but the employees and contractors who hold the leverage aren't listening.

[northernladuk]

The world progresses and good ideas stick around after they're initially needed. We have women in work now because they entered work out of necessity during WW2. When the war finished, they didn't all go back to the home. The same will be the case with WFH - it took a pandemic to drag businesses kicking and screaming to something they should've been doing years ago, but hadn't, because of "how it had always been done". Now they can try to row back, but the employees and contractors who hold the leverage aren't listening.

Totally agree with all that but I don't agree 100% WFH is the future. Same with the women at work example. The numbers in work after the war never went back to the old days but never stayed them same as during. It became something better after an extreme even, just like Covid was always going to. A much better flexible option will be more the norm for sure as people need to see each other for various reasons so expecting it to stay 100% WFH is (IMO) is not right.