City of London

[sartois]

And again. A trek of 30 mins is significant compared to a change from London to Birmingham? You have to apply a bit of common sense here as well as the rules. This is a rule that covers everone nationally, not just someone that thinks a 30 min of time is significant.

Think about it in respect to a permie. If a permie moves from one job to another and the journey isn't too significant he wouldn't move so wouldn't require any help with relocation. He would just commute it and swallow the change. If it was a big geographical move then he can claim expenses for 2 years at which point it is reasonable to assume this period of time would allow him to make a decision as to whether to keep the job or relocate so tax benefit ends. The rule wasn't designed for contractors to keep switching gigs hence the awful wording leaving the grey areas.

But again, think clearly. 30 mins being significant? If that is your bench mark what would an insignificant change be?

Actually I really do think 30 mins is significant. I am looking to buy a place at the moment and am turning my nose up at anything that requires a longer than 30 minute commute to my current office in the City of London (but this is a personal issue that I have with commuting). That extra 30 minutes equates to 5 hours a week extra travel, which I think is huge. So if after I find a place like that, and then change to a contract to a location that required a 60 minute journey I would definitely consider that significant.

I would class insignificant as the first example on the HMRC site where they mention a site adjacent to the existing one:

Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: safeguards against abuse: changes to a workplace: example

[northernladuk]

Actually I really do think 30 mins is significant. I am looking to buy a place at the moment and am turning my nose up at anything that requires a longer than 30 minute commute to my current office in the City of London (but this is a personal issue that I have with commuting). That extra 30 minutes equates to 5 hours a week extra travel, which I think is huge. So if after I find a place like that, and then change to a contract to a location that required a 60 minute journey I would definitely consider that significant.

I would class insignificant as the first example on the HMRC site where they mention a site adjacent to the existing one:

Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: safeguards against abuse: changes to a workplace: example

Well you need to not think about yourself and think about the the rule that covers the length and breadth of the country then. Many contractors commute up and down the country and would kill for a 30 minute change.

[eek]

And again. A trek of 30 mins is significant compared to a change from London to Birmingham? You have to apply a bit of common sense here as well as the rules. This is a rule that covers everone nationally, not just someone that thinks a 30 min of time is significant.

Think about it in respect to a permie. If a permie changes office from one location to another and the journey isn't too significant he wouldn't move so wouldn't require any help with relocation. He would just commute it and swallow the change. If it was a big geographical move then he can claim expenses for 2 years at which point it is reasonable to assume this period of time would allow him to make a decision as to whether to keep the job or relocate so tax benefit ends. The rule wasn't designed for contractors to keep switching gigs hence the awful wording leaving the grey areas.

But again, think clearly. 30 mins being significant? If that is your bench mark what would an insignificant change be?

I've changed the above because a Permie cannot charge mileage for his day to day commute when he moves jobs. If the company moves his default location however.....

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Certain aspects of the 24 month rule (timing, 40% rule etc.) are quite clear cut. The most subjective aspect of the whole thing is the "significant change in journey" rule, hence the numerous discussions on here and lots of people having their own opinion.

HMRC guidance makes it clear that a significant change in route or cost is important, even if the new workplace is geographically close (the famous "bridge" example) however conversely, two workplaces miles apart could be considered the same if the journey costs roughly the same and isn't significantly different (e.g. different tube line but same number of stops and same duration).

IMO, if you're commuting into central London for multiple clients and sites, say zone 1, then I'd say there is no significant change in journey as the cost will be largely the same and the journey isn't going to be that different. On the other hand, if you leave say in Essex, then getting to West London might be significantly different (and more expensive) than getting to East London.

At the end of the day, all you have to ask yourself is: in the event of a HMRC compliance check, if questioned, could you justify the change in journey as being significant and make a decent case? If so, then by all means claim the expense.

At worst, an inspector is going to disagree and make you treat the payments as a BIK and you'll owe tax and possibly interest but I think if you've done due diligence and can at least show you've considered the rules, they'd be hard pressed to say you've been negligent and penalise you. I certainly wouldn't consider not taking a job on the basis of not being able to carry on claiming expenses and if you feel the decision is borderline, then just make a decision and get on with business.

[Scrag Meister]

Hi all,

I have been working for 2,5 years at a company based in Canary Wharf, London. In order for me to start claiming travel expenses back again, could you please advise where my next contract has to be?
Can I claim back travel expenses if the contract is outside of Canary Wharf for example?

Many thanks.

Depends how far outside of CW, Brighton -Yes, Durham - Yes, Moorgate - No.

I regular switch between the 2 and am in CW at the mo, I wouldn't consider the City far enough of a change to merit starting expenses again.

[kesm]

So I work in Canary Wharf and have an offer of a new contract in Moorgate. Is that considered change to my journey?

[tarbera]

No

So I work in Canary Wharf and have an offer of a new contract in Moorgate. Is that considered change to my journey?

No - jog on

[kesm]

No - jog on

Can you please explain why?

[cojak]

Can you please explain why?

Because it's just a few stops down the DLR. (Admittedly you'll need to walk from Bank...)

[DirtyDog]

So I work in Canary Wharf and have an offer of a new contract in Moorgate. Is that considered change to my journey?

Yes, it's a change.

Whether it is a significant change (which is what HMRC require) is a different question. It's also one open to significant debate on here.

Where are you travelling from at the moment to get to CW? Would the new journey be significantly different?