We had a similar question not long ago on the forum.

There is no straightforward answer. A commute doesn't count as compensatory mileage, so those whose commute is only as far as the kitchen table are better off than those commuting to an office.

This, of course, is arguably intentional, because people working from home aren't contributing to congestion, are using less fuel, creating less air pollution and even contributing to more vibrant and safer communities. But, of course, when they *do* travel to the office, all of a sudden they're getting paid mileage for it while the unfortunate ones who drive there every day aren't and it feels unfair.

But on the other hand, one of the great things about having remote workers is that they can be recruited from anywhere in the country, which improves the quality of your hires, but also means that they might be "commuting" vast distances, perhaps necessitating overnight stay, whereas your office-based workers are more likely to be relatively close to the site. Is it "fair" that the home-based worker travelling hundreds of miles to get to work has to swallow that cost?

1. There is no legal unfairness in this situation. The issue is cultural and psychological, not legal.

2. You can always have *everyone* work from home.

3. You can always not have *everyone* have to come to work.

At the end of the day, though, that's just how the cookie crumbles.

I wonder if the right approach is to pay for travel where you require attendance (for everyone) and not when they choose to attend.

Clearly no one has the serviced offices as their contractual place of work

I assume you are saving a fortune by not having office but simply by paying for serviced space on an as and when

Otherwise it will become increasing arbitrary that people who 3-4 years ago worked in nan office you no longer owned don't get expenses but people who you hired yesterday do?

Hi - can i check what you did with the contracts for the people who ha the old office as their work location when you stopped owning an office Technically it is a redundancy situation so you should have consulted/issued new contracts. I would suggest resolving the contractual situation and including the mileage issue within that consultation etc. A lot of the risk will depend on how 'reasonable' the changes are (or are not)

In reply to Teresa:

We haven't moved location as OP has, but we have introduced Flexible Hybrid Working which still states in the contract that the workplace is x campus, but then there are local arrangements (where practical in the job role) of how many days attendance in the office and how many working from home. We do not and would not pay travel expenses home to normal work place but if we required someone to work at another location we would pay travel expenses based on contractual office to "guest" workplace or from home if the travel from home is actually shorter.
We do have a vanishingly small number of staff actually contracted to work at home "permanently" but the majority are contracted to work on campus with flexibility to work from home.