Same. Since the modern fleet is too large for the yard it was trimmed right back to 10-15 ONRs issued strictly by seniority. Until LATs kicked up and that was gently altered. And now somehow there's vans outside the homes of junior staff who don't do LATs, so no idea what the current criteria are.
Oh, and it's a recurrent problem that in the early AM the lorry can't back into the loading bay for the vans abandoned in the yard.
The use of company vehicles for personal use was stopped some time ago. Its a benefit in kind and must be taxed.
Driving to and from a fixed place of employment is not classed as personal use, I can't imagine anybody who has a van on retention is taxed.
It's clearly not as no RM posties are paying tax? It's only taxable if there's no a business need to use the van and RM will state the van was needed due to early starts, insufficient space in the yard etc.
It's clearly not as no RM posties are paying tax? It's only taxable if there's no a business need to use the van and RM will state the van was needed due to early starts, insufficient space in the yard etc.
In the case of the OP it appears that there are no business needs to have a van home if they are suddenly just stopping retentions.
People in our area were taking vans home for years with with no tax being paid, with vague reasons for doing so.
It's clearly not as no RM posties are paying tax? It's only taxable if there's no a business need to use the van and RM will state the van was needed due to early starts, insufficient space in the yard etc.
In the case of the OP it appears that there are no business needs to have a van home if they are suddenly just stopping retentions.
People in our area were taking vans home for years with with no tax being paid, with vague reasons for doing so.
Precisely, no RM employee is paying tax for a van retention.
As far as the OP we've simply no idea why they had van retention.
It's clearly not as no RM posties are paying tax? It's only taxable if there's no a business need to use the van and RM will state the van was needed due to early starts, insufficient space in the yard etc.
In the case of the OP it appears that there are no business needs to have a van home if they are suddenly just stopping retentions.
People in our area were taking vans home for years with with no tax being paid, with vague reasons for doing so.
Precisely, no RM employee is paying tax for a van retention.
As far as the OP we've simply no idea why they had van retention.
I think that we can both agree that some van retentions would have been leaving people liable for tax, hence the reason it has stopped in many places, unless business reasons require it.
It's clearly not as no RM posties are paying tax? It's only taxable if there's no a business need to use the van and RM will state the van was needed due to early starts, insufficient space in the yard etc.
In the case of the OP it appears that there are no business needs to have a van home if they are suddenly just stopping retentions.
People in our area were taking vans home for years with with no tax being paid, with vague reasons for doing so.
Precisely, no RM employee is paying tax for a van retention.
As far as the OP we've simply no idea why they had van retention.
I think that we can both agree that some van retentions would have been leaving people liable for tax, hence the reason it has stopped in many places, unless business reasons require it.
I don't need to agree anything as nobody was talking about the past on this thread. If somebody still as a van retention then they won't be paying tax.
It's clearly not as no RM posties are paying tax? It's only taxable if there's no a business need to use the van and RM will state the van was needed due to early starts, insufficient space in the yard etc.
In the case of the OP it appears that there are no business needs to have a van home if they are suddenly just stopping retentions.
People in our area were taking vans home for years with with no tax being paid, with vague reasons for doing so.
Precisely, no RM employee is paying tax for a van retention.
As far as the OP we've simply no idea why they had van retention.
I think that we can both agree that some van retentions would have been leaving people liable for tax, hence the reason it has stopped in many places, unless business reasons require it.
I don't need to agree anything as nobody was talking about the past on this thread. If somebody still as a van retention then they won't be paying tax.
Post 2. Talks about retentions stopping once EV's come in. Nothing to do with space constraints or shift starting times.
I agree that no one will be paying tax, but they would be liable to do so if the criteria weren't met.