Company car.

[alfie831]

Hi, my parner has had a company car for about 3.5 years, he started with a van for 6 months until the car arrived. He is a building surveyor and has no set place of work, each day he leaves home for different locations around the county. He has paid tax for this car and private mileage as reflected on his P11D. We use the car a lot at weekends to visit family and to take our baby out. Now his company have given 2 weeks notice that the car is going and he must have a van. We cannot take our daughter out in this as she is will not be insured. There is no mention of a vehicle at all in his contract of employment but it was a verbal agreement when he started and they obiously have to provide him with a vehicle. Can they take the car away? Is this taking a benefit away? Are they trying to force him out? Please help

[VHG]

Their company, their car, their van.

Unless it is in his contract they can do what they like.

[buildersmate]

It is probably a cost-saving measure rather than an attempt to force him to leave the job.

Because he had the benefit of the car for 3 years and it was provided under a verbally agreed arrangement, I'd be inclined to claim that it is an implied term of his contract that he has a car.

If the company wishes to change this then they can, by consultation, but it doesn't sound like any consultation has occurred. Even if they do change the contract, the company should be giving him at least his notice period's worth of time that the change is occurring - and this will be more than two weeks (it is probably 4 weeks notice?).

So I would raise a grievance with the company, stating that I consider it to be an implied term of my contract that I enjoy a car with the job, I am willing to discuss the matter to find out why the company wishes to change the contractor, but that at present the company seems to have unilaterally decided the change the agrreement without any consultation and not giving me notice.

If the company, as part of the grievance process, claims it wants to save money, perhaps by prepared to agree to be slightly smaller car.

Is he the only one impacted? Are there other cost-saving measures going on around the patch?

No doubt Tony W will have an valued view on this - if he sees the question.

[buildersmate]

Err, wrong VHG.
You've created your 1-liner whilst I was creating mine.

[factor-fiction]

I usually agree 100% with buildersmate but I'm not so sure this time.

Suppose the employer had provided a petrol car (or a 5 door car) and then says they will replace it with a diesel car (or 3 door one). Would alfie's partner have a case for insisting on a petrol/5 door car? I'm not so sure. But i can see that if the employer had provided a Jaguar and then replaced it with a Reliant Robin that would be considered a reduction in his benefits package so he would have a case.

A couple of queries, alfie- please can you explain the bit about "We cannot take our daughter out in this as she is will not be insured".
Also, has teh employer offered any cash alternative?

.

[bednobs]

Also, i was wondering if he meeds a van for his work? (tools etc) if not, i would have thought a van was more expensive to run.

[tonywiltshire]

I generally agree with BM your partner may be able to claim the provision of a car is an implied term in his contract of employment having had one for 3.5 years but he was originally provided with a van, which he found adequate. The employer must obviously provide a means for your partner to attend various sites; the question is what type of vehicle.

There will be a reason for this proposed change, cost cutting being the most likely. I would suggest your partner speaks to his employer and explains how the change from a car to a van would adversely affect him, he having a car whilst others doing similar work are given a van could cause difficulties. If he is a valued employee the employer will do all they can to assist him, no employer wants an aggrieved employee if they can avoid it. If the reason is cost cutting it may help if your partner offers some suggestions to help with this, perhaps the employees providing their own transport, if this is practical, and paid a set amount per business mile If the employers are unhelpful and refuse to assist your partner he can raise his grievance.

[tonywiltshire]

Alfie, some people have knowledge of employment law others have commonsense with BM you have both, I think in your case I would probably talk to your employers before taking any action, your partner will know which way is practical to go. Follow BM.

[shoota]

Factor 30 - I think that a child in a van would not be insure because the parents would take up the two seats, therefore, unless it were a three seater van the child would be carried in contravention of the insurance policy.

[EDDIE51]

Apart from the smallest vans they all have 3 seats in front so could you, your partner and the baby all fit in anyway? If it has 3 seats it is insured for 3 people !

[Skyline D]

If the van has airbags it will be illegal to carry a baby in the front seats Eddie (and never mind that, far more importantly it's bloody dangerous!).

As others have said, buildersmate knows more about this than most but I do tend to agree with the suggestion that any implied contract is for the provision of a vehicle, not necessarily specifically a car. He's had a van before and it wouldn't necessarily be breaching any implicit term to provide one again therefore would it?