Welcome to the communities

I am not sure why you are considering paying overnight accommodation and subsidence - most people wouldn't in these circumstances.

Most people wouldn't pay mileage and as you suspect I think HMRC would right view this to be a taxable benefit.

My guess is that working in the office 2 days a week isn't going to work - so that's the key - do you really need them in the office?

In reply to Keith:

Hi Keith,
Thank you so much for your response.
I would agree with you regarding the overnight accommodation to be honest. It wasn't our choice for him to move away.
Unfortunately we do really need them in the office. They heavily support the customer service department with technical queries. It will be tough to have them absent for 3 days, let alone 5. Hence we came up with this compromise.
That's great to have my suspicions regarding mileage benefit confirmed and your response has certainly helped!

Thank you again

In reply to Hayley:

Good luck

If they are 300 miles (Newcastle to London ish) away and they are driving then that's likely to be a 4-5 hour journey minimum and then same again next day going home....practically when will they actually travel? The night before? After doing a full day working from home? Is this even safe for you and them?

I think you either bite the bullet and say you cant accommodate this for one of the statutory reasons or allow them to work from home 5 days a week. Pretty much anything else is bound (IMO) to fail and sooner rather than later.

an alternative might be a week on / week off. And or the week they are in HO doing 5 days in 4. But of course this will increase their hotel costs. 

I would imagine that they feel they can work from home and still do the job otherwise they wouldn't have suggested it. Maybe a trial period may be an option so both sides can try to make it work?

In reply to Keith:

Thanks again Keith. I really appreciate your input.

Their original request was to move away to Leeds, working remotely and come into the office once a month. Unfortunately once a month just wouldn't be enough for the business. We really need them about every week. Hence the offer to pay accommodation as a compromise.

I completely get where you are coming from with regards to travelling times etc and will definitely give this some thought. We've not yet gone back to the employee with any suggestions and so we still have time to think up alternatives.

Alternate weeks could definitely work for the business, but I know the individual would not want to go for this option as they are due to become a dad in the next couple of weeks.

We are keen to retain the employee, so it's a struggle to find the right balance for them and for the business.

Thanks again! Much appreciated

In reply to Johanna:

Hi Johanna

Thank you for your response. We will definitely be having a trial period for sure. They are able to work from home, but unfortunately the job does require them to provide support to other departments in the company and so also being around in the office as well. Hence 100% of the time is not possible. Just trying to find the right balance to work for both parties! Thanks again

Hi Hayley,

Like Keith, I'd question the mileage. I would further question the subsistence and hotel bill, neither of which is your organisation's problem and both of which HMRC are also likely to consider to be taxable as benefits in kind.

It's laudable that you're trying to bend over backwards to accommodate this lifestyle change/life event for your employee, but I do think that's what you're doing and I wonder how effective it will be. For instance, you mention that they assist with technical support and suggest that this is a reactive/ad-hoc process which requires their physical presence. If this is the case and that unpredictable/unscheduled process cannot be performed by anyone else then I think this is doomed to fail. You mention a 'compromise' but it sounds more like an arrangement which doesn't really meet anyone's needs!

I'm interested as to what has led the employee to make this decision to move and whether they have (or have been given) any expectation of flexibility from their employer. 300 miles is a very long way and I would imagine and hope that they have prepared themselves for the possibility that this may not be something which their employer can weather. I hear that you're keen to retain them - but are they as keen to be retained? It doesn't sound that their plan suggests so.

I guess what I'm coming to is to reassure you that if one or more of the fair reasons to turn down this request actually apply, then you're well within your rights to say no to this. I'm all for trial periods but any trial agreed would need to take place over a representative period for the organiation so as to give a realistic picture of the pros and cons, successes and failures which are encountered.

Good luck with it!

In reply to Eleanor:

Hi Eleanor,

Huge, huge thank you for your response. That is a very good question - do they want to be retained. It's definitely given me another thing to think about.

They want to move to be nearer to family, which is understandable when you have a new baby. No promises had been made to him regarding flexible working previously.

Thank you

In reply to Hayley:

Hi Hayley, I guess my point is, as the current role holder, it's interesting that they haven't reaslised that and think the role can be done 100% remotely. Have they explained how they propose that aspect of providing face to face support could be surmounted? Good luck with it all - lots of good support coming through from Community members

This is the right place and welcome, Hayley!