# Bike to Work Scammer



## stevieob (20 Nov 2018)

As an employer, I am wondering if there are any obligations on me regarding the correct use of the scheme.

Eg. If I know I have an employee who is planning to buy a bike on the bike to work scheme, but it is for someone else.

Someone else is also an employee.....

Employee 1 pays tax, someone else doesn't earn enough to pay any tax.

Should I allow them to avail of the scheme?


Quote from revenue
*Employer records*
All records in relation to this scheme can be examined by Revenue as part of normal inspections.

Failing to operate the scheme correctly will result in the benefits being withdrawn from both you and your employee.


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2018)

How do you know? If it is just office talk, ignore it. If employee one is entitled to take part in the scheme and applies correctly, what they physically do with the bike is not your problem. You will still be making the deductions from that persons payroll. That is all revenue care about.


----------



## stevieob (20 Nov 2018)

someone else asked me... by email, fully traceable, so I know what they are up to


----------



## Cervelo (20 Nov 2018)

stevieob said:


> someone else asked me... by email, fully traceable, so I know what they are up to



 Here's the wording from Citizens Information about the scheme

*Qualifying journeys*

You must use the bicycle and safety equipment mainly for qualifying journeys. This means the whole or part (for example between home and train station) of a journey between your home and your normal place of work. Employers do not have to monitor this but you will be asked to sign a statement saying that the bicycle is for your own use and will be mainly used for qualifying journeys.

The reality in my experience is most employees don't meet this requirement


----------



## noproblem (20 Nov 2018)

Lets put it another way, if the person goes ahead and gets the bike in the normal way through the scheme and some time later gives the bike to the friend, it has nothing to do with the employer in all fairness. Everyone has done their part in buying the bike, including the employer. Then the employer, through a third party, is told that the employee has given the bike to someone else? Surely that's not the employers business? I certainly wouldn't do anything about it, isn't it getting people out and about in the fresh air? Too many busybody's in Ireland for my liking.


----------



## Setanta12 (20 Nov 2018)

I would give the official line in all correspondence. But I would make known informally that how can you be sure rules are being flouted unless someone is stupid to tell you.


----------



## Peanuts (20 Nov 2018)

stevieob said:


> someone else asked me... by email, fully traceable, so I know what they are up to



If you're worried about somebody reporting you, then send an e-mail to the employee asking them to confirm that the bike is for them. That way you are covered.


----------



## David1234 (21 Nov 2018)

Anecdotally I have only heard of 1 person to use the bike to work scheme for how it is intended.

It would seem that  a number of Bike shops are happy to provide fake quotes and invoices in order to facilitate the person getting the bike.

I have heard the following-
As above, an employee getting a bike for a family member/spouse.
Parents getting bikes for their non working children through the scheme. The shop in this instance quoted a different make and model of bike on the quote and receipt.
Employees getting 2 bikes (listed as 1) within the allowance through the scheme. The shop here only put one of the bikes on the quote and invoice at an inflated price.
People getting a large amount of clothing & footwear that was not covered as part of the scheme. The shop here only listed the bike at an inflated price on the quote and invoice.
The worst I heard is people using the full allowance against travel systems (high end buggys) for their new borns. In this case the shop completely fabricated a quote and invoice stating it was for a bike.

Each of the above was through different shops in different parts of the county.

I think that some of the obligation here should be on the bike shops and not employers. They are the ones who are getting a huge increase in their sales.


----------



## dereko1969 (21 Nov 2018)

David1234 said:


> Anecdotally I have only heard of 1 person to use the bike to work scheme for how it is intended.
> 
> It would seem that  a number of Bike shops are happy to provide fake quotes and invoices in order to facilitate the person getting the bike.
> 
> ...


You need to hear more anecdotes!
I'm sure the massive increase in the numbers cycling to work since the scheme was brought in has nothing to do with the scheme.
There will always be people messing with a self-assessed system.


----------



## Leo (21 Nov 2018)

dereko1969 said:


> I'm sure the massive increase in the numbers cycling to work since the scheme was brought in has nothing to do with the scheme.



True, and the governmenr admitted at the time that the system was open to abuse, but the positives of encouraging more people to cycle would far outweight any such concerns.


----------



## David1234 (21 Nov 2018)

Leo said:


> True, and the governmenr admitted at the time that the system was open to abuse, but the positives of encouraging more people to cycle would far outweight any such concerns.



All very true but it shouldn't be the case that one industry is booming because they are committing fraud. Surely this should be treated the same as any other tax fraud by a company?

Simply saying that there has been some societal benefits can't negate the fact that there is a significant amount of fraud by employees and bike shops which has resulted in a drop in tax receipts?


----------



## Leo (21 Nov 2018)

David1234 said:


> All very true but it shouldn't be the case that one industry is booming because they are committing fraud. Surely this should be treated the same as any other tax fraud by a company?
> 
> Simply saying that there has been some societal benefits can't negate the fact that there is a significant amount of fraud by employees and bike shops which has resulted in a drop in tax receipts?




I'm not saying that, just that the government themselves admitted the sums involved would not justify much in the way of investment in enforcement.

Has there really been an overall drop in tax receipts? What about the offset of lower healthcare costs? Lower fuel imports and carbon emmission? It's a very complicated sum to calculate.


----------



## David1234 (21 Nov 2018)

I suppose my main issue is that the bike shops are doing great business out of this scheme and some are completely abusing it.

I absolutely agree about all the health and social benefits that can somewhat related to the scheme. I do not agree that the fraud should be ignored because there are benefits elsewhere.


----------



## Cervelo (21 Nov 2018)

I would have thought that the scheme pays for its self through increased vat and revenue tax from the bike industry and the fact that the government also extended the scheme


----------



## michaelm (21 Nov 2018)

stevieob said:


> Should I allow them to avail of the scheme?


I would do what Peanuts suggests above and don't over think it.

I suspect that many will get a €1000 quote for a given bike & equipment, and get a voucher for same, but will ultimately buy a cheaper one and get a credit note for the balance.  Not sure anyone loses an eye. 

The scheme was one of the few magic beans the Greens got in return for abandoning their principles and keeping FF in government.  I don't believe either the Government or Revenue actually care if people engage creatively with the scheme.  I think it's a case of don't ask don't tell.


----------



## Firefly (18 Dec 2018)

They could always buy a tricycle 


https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing...-of-bicycles-for-directors-and-employees.aspx

*"Qualifying bicycles and safety equipment*
The following bicycles and equipment can qualify for this scheme:


pedal bicycles and *tricycles*
"


----------



## elacsaplau (18 Dec 2018)

michaelm said:


> The scheme was one of the few magic beans the Greens got in return for abandoning their principles and keeping FF in government.



Seems unfair. What's a minority party meant to do??


----------



## michaelm (18 Dec 2018)

Firefly said:


> They could always buy a tricycle


Some people need them for mobility reasons.  I know a guy who gets around on one.





elacsaplau said:


> Seems unfair. What's a minority party meant to do??


Well if they hadn't u-turned on their leader's pre-election promise not ot jump into bed with FF the likely FF/independents government wouldn't have lasted kissing time and the Greens may have got into the high-teens at the next election.

Perhaps I am being unfair . . I should have also credited them with Ireland being the first country in the word to ban the incandescent lightbulb  and the BER cert nonsense.


----------



## elacsaplau (18 Dec 2018)

Whats wrong with BERs?


----------



## noproblem (18 Dec 2018)

elacsaplau said:


> Whats wrong with BERs?



Personally speaking, they're a load of nonsense.


----------



## elacsaplau (18 Dec 2018)

Pas de prob,

You're usually a little more insightful than this?!


----------



## Leo (19 Dec 2018)

elacsaplau said:


> Whats wrong with BERs?



They're a very rough finger in the air measure with huge variance between certified levels and real world performance.

That said, they have come a long way since they've started insisting on minimum qualifications for those becoming assessors. In the early days, anyone who could fork up the appropriate fee could sign up, and then be expected to make detailed assessments of the thermal performance of every element of a property.


----------

