What is the actual constraint there? That you use the bike for at least 50% to commute? Or that you do 50% of your commuting by bike?

@SolarMike this is not evasion, but outright fraud.

@nvoigt At least 50% of the cycle’s use must be for ‘qualifying journeys’, i.e. commuting to work purposes. If you ride the bike 10 times in a year at least 5 of those rides must be for commuting.

Okay, so the question is: will the folding bike be used for at least 50% work journies? Or will it be used 51%+ for private use?

Is a driver's/biker's log required? If not, how will authorities control if the bike was used for at least 50%?

A situation where de facto and de jure rules are different is not an uncommon one. Here, de jure you have to satisfy the 50% requirement but de jure it does not seem to be necessary. I suppose my question boils down to where on the spectrum between the two it lays and how much of a faux pas is it to make the difference between them obvious.

@mustaccio it's tax evasion under UK law; the benefit that is gained is not paying tax on the salary that is used to purchase the bicycle. Note that under UK law, tax evasion is a worse thing to happen to you than fraud.

@iLuvLogix There is no requirement to keep formal records, but if the authorities did decide to prosecute it would in the end be up to a magistrate and/or jury to convict or otherwise based on the evidence provided.

iLuvLogix, who cares how it is checked? Fact is that if you lie about it, it's a serious crime, which can be prosecuted for years, and the consequences can be very bad.

@JoeStrazzere I assume asking your employer if they want to be part of tax evasion is a professional faux pas (on top of the tax evasion). You wouldn't evade taxes in a way that your employer knows about.

For peace of mind, don't do it. Just not worth it.

To meet the 50% threshold, just commute to the coffeeshop daily and check your emails.

Devils advocate here. Your employer knows where you live and where their office is. Why do you even think that they will automatically extend this benefit to you?

@PeterM In theory, because it acts as a benefit to them as well (they don't pay the employer's taxes on the money used for the bike).

@PhilipKendall But there is also a cost to them in managing the deduction in HR and payroll. But if they allow it then the company is complicit in the fraud, and I can't see any company willingly opening themselves to potential lawsuits.

-1 "Technically the government-sanctioned scheme operators claim that at least 50% of the journeys with said bicycle have to be commuting for it to qualify" You're not going to use the bike for this purpose so don't use the scheme.

Do you have another bike and almost only use this folding one for these trips? If so what’s the problem. Even if you use it say 20 times a year and all of them are part of this commute to and from the main office, you are good, no? Or would you use this new foldy for other trips about town?