Conference terri::cars_uk

    re-1
    
    What about when you order a Turbo Diesel and 1 day before delivery
    someone rings up and says you *PETROL* *TURBO* will be delivered
    tomorrow and you have to wait 2-6 weeks for the right car :-(
    
    Grant

    
    Take the Petrol Turbo until the Diesel arrives!:^)
    
    Or better still forget the Diesel altogether!..
    
    Mark

Since I started trying to replace my Audi in September the car quotes in VTX
have been a shambles. I've had two quotes back so far, both  "rejected". No one
in car fleet has been able to tell me yet why they were (I think *I* know
why now, but thats not the point). I'll need an MOT in March (so will the car;-) )

There have been so many cases of two almost identical cars but the higher
spec one has the lower price (ie metalic vs non-metalic).

We have the nerve to call ourself a computer company but we can't get such a
simple system to work reliably.

Re .0>    Does anybody think that two quotes is too few......

       A collegue who had exhausted his two quotes rang car fleet
       recently to inquire on the possibilty of getting a third. He was
       told that if he'd got one back, he could go ahead. The "two
       quotes" rule applies to 'outstanding' quotes, he was told. I.e.
       you can only have 2 quotes in the system at one time, but there is
       no limit to how many you get processed.

       Ian.

    re.2
    
    Well unfortunatlly I do'nt think you can do that.  The Diesel Turbo
    is a lot cheaper to lease and you get 12mpg better fuel consumption
    around town in the diesel.
    
    If it were up to me I would take the petrol Turbo.
    
    re quotes
    
    Over the past few months VTX Car Fleet has been producing some really
    strange quotes E.G �262 for a non-sipplement holder for a Lotus
    Esprit Turbo.
    
    Grant

    
    Are fleet bound to give you a car as described on VTX for the figure
    stated? If so it could almost be worth joining Digital on a permanent
    basis! 
    
    Hold on! WHAT AM I SAYING!!! :^)
    
    Mark

    ..... I asked about the Lotus Quote...... seesm there is no obligation
    on the part of Fleet to honour any quote that's put up on VTX. They
    can always wriggle out.......

    In fairness to car fleet they have had some problems with a new
    system over the past few months, which were not their fault.
    
    But why can they not simply give us a guide price per thousand pounds
    list price? They could do it by make, to take account of differing
    residuals and discounts; we could then at least project the likely
    price we would get on the quote.
    
    Steve

Or alternatively given that new cars are only introduced at the rate of one or 
two a month perhaps "they" could get a quote on a base model with floor mats
push button radio and non-metalic finish for all new cars to give us a guide
line.

/. Ian .\

    Nah, wouldn't work ! Remember, our fleet department tries to help us by
    finding the cheapest car they can in the country. This means PHH/Hertz,
    via our fleet department, getting your car ferried in from the Outer
    Hebrides to save five bob. Then add on loads extra for transport, the
    lease company's overhead, and a factor determined by the weather, and
    you arrive at the lease cost to us.
    
    Furthermore, today your "base" (very appropriate term, methinks :-) car
    costs x pounds. Tomorrow, Jo Bloggs round the corner has a bad day, and
    adds y pounds 'cause he just had an argument with his wife. Therefore,
    cost = x + y pounds. Add the above factors, get a completely different
    proce to the one before.
    
    Net result ?? Our fleet department don't have a clue what the price is
    likely to be !!!
    
    Question, what do other companies do ?
    
    Well, they have discounts that they demand. If they do not get them,
    they do not do business with the garage. Therefore, they can give you a
    quote over the phone, probably factoring in any extras (wheels etc :-)
    straightaway.
    
    Problem with this method ? Costs are higher because they are not trying
    for different discounts. WRONG. They have buying power, and probably
    therefore get the cars cheaper.
    
    The real problem is ? I'll leave you to work it out for yourselves.
    Suffice to say that we, Digital, like to offer a complete solution to
    our customers, hence making us rather successful, and saving the
    customer work. Now, extrapolate !!!
    
    Colin

    Ther price we "pay" is comprised of three components.....
    
    Car from PHH/Hertz
    Insurance
    the overhead burden of the Car Fleet admin Group.
    
    Taking them in order.....
    
    I am personally very sceptical of the price that we are quoted by
    either concern as they are not out to look after my interests but
    their own.... because they deal one-step-removed from the real consumer
    there is no incentive for them to achieve "customer satisfaction"
    as they have a captive market
    
    Well we all gotta have insurance ans I believe that DEC pays
    �500/yr/car for 3rd party liability only. It must surely be cost
    effective to do what other large concerns do and that is not take
    out insurance but post the usual �10,000 bond with the crown.
    
    Well ....... as Fleet admin is now part of Purchasing I fail to
    see why we get hit with this cost at all especially as we see about
    the square root of 3/5ths of s*d all management. As far as I am
    concerned I do all the management on my car, the obnly thing that
    I get out of fleet admin is an insurance letter and a tax disc every
    year and then mismanagement of the quote sytem.
    
    As an exercise in futility, I have had the appropriate garage do
    me a quote to lease to me the vehicle I had ordered over the last
    4 changes of vehicle. Taking all the Tax advantages I was able to
    beat the price that I was paying for the new car by over �1000/yr!
    So even allowing for insurance you can assume that there was �500
    of my money going up the swannee every year. Now if theere was a
    mechanism set up that would allow me to sign up a lease on DEC's
    behalf I coukld shop around for the best price. Even if it meant
    that I'd have to make the payment and then claim it back each month
    I'd be willing to do it.
    
    We are under a period of expense constraint "use the companie's
    money like it was your own we are told" Seems like the Company could
    take a lesson from itself 'cos I for one am not keen to be forced
    to spend money for no return.
    
    ..... end of angst dispersion .....

	With interest rates at 15% �500/yr looks cheap compared
	to 15% of �10,000 = �1500 pa, always assuming the amount
	hasn't risen lately. (Seems cheap for a super exotic).

	The sooner all company funded car schemes are a thing of
	the past the better. Now that income tax rates are lower 
	in the UK, the incentive to have such schemes is minimal.
	I imagine that most DEC users go for the scheme since it's
	convenient, particularly regarding insurance.

	I think everybody should be responsible for getting their
	own insurance.

	-John

    re.11 management of cars
    
    I tend to agree with you there.  It all depends on the dealer you
    go to for servicing for instance LEX BROOKLANDS of READING do all
    management of my dads car.  
    
    They send a letter/postcard whenever the car needs servicing or
    an MOT.  My dad does not need to know that the car needs a service
    LEX BROOKLANDS do all that for him and it is not as if he has a
    new car.
    
    Now that is what I call CUSTOMER SERVICE!!
    
    Grant

re.12:

>	I imagine that most DEC users go for the scheme since it's
>	convenient, particularly regarding insurance.

Many use the lease scheme because they do not have the capital to put down
as a deposit on a new vehicle. Once in the scheme, it's more convenient to 
stay in that work your way out.

I am not in the scheme and find it's cheaper out than in by 400 pounds 
a year (including repairs, servicing, tax, insurance, interest on loans 
etc).

Dave.

    Ref 925.11
    On a point of info, DEC pays �500 per car per year for Comprehensive.
    We buy Third Party on the insurance market out of that, self-fund
    own damage costs, Thefts, write-offs, windscreen replacements, foreign
    use, recoveries, legal representation for drivers in civil damages
    cases and traffic offence cases and salvage sales.  This is cheaper
    than full insurance and it isn't as easy as posting a �10K Bond
    with the Crown these days especially for a Fleet of 4,00 + cars.
    
    Doug

    re:12
    
    FLAME ON
    
    How to win friends and influence people, eh !!
    
    You are treading on extremely dodgy ground, my friend.
    
    1. I need my car for my job. No car, no job.
    
    2. I have no option other than to be in the scheme.
    
    3. If the company did not provide me with a car, they would have to pay
    a significantly higher mileage rate (30-40p being the norm), and
    substantially increase my salary, to allow me to buy the sort of car I
    need for my job.
    
    4. As for the tax rate being lower, you obviously go around with your
    eyes glued on page 3 (:-) In fact, the overall burden on your average
    tax payer has INCREASED in the last 10 years. Whilst direct income tax
    has been reduced, indirect tax (NI, VAT, etc) has been increased, and
    applied across a wider range of goods and services. Furthermore, with
    the interest rate as high as it is, the cost of borrowing to buy the
    aforementioned appropriate car has become crippling.
    
    In summary, I am very fortunate in working for a company where my car
    is provided and paid for. I appreciate it. I also work hard for that
    company, and part of that work involves visiting many and varied
    clients. I fail to see why I should pay the company (any company) to
    work for them !
    
    
    Colin
    
    FLAME OFF

    re .11
    
    I thought the idea of getting quotes from 2 different companies
    (ie. PHH and Hertz) was to introduce an element of competition,
    thereby keeping the costs down.
    
    I found it very surprising recently when I arranged a hire car through
    PHH (my car was in for repairs). Guess who turned out to be the supplier
    of the hire car .....Hertz!
    
    Perhaps they're not in competition with each other after all!

    Alison

Re: .16

you forgot about the fact that these lease cars (which those of us who are
not receiving a supplement, are paying through the nose for...) are still
classed as "Company cars" according to the tax man and we are, since the
last budget, TAXED FOR THEM....

They are definitely *NOT* a perk.

I have a lease car because I do *very* high mileage just commuting, and have 
no wish to have to sell an excessively high mileage car at the end of my use of
it !

    "NOT JUST A PERK"
    
    I also do high mileage just commuting.. 82 miles per day to be presice,
    I do this in a car produced in 1970, and at a considerable petrol cost
    to myself, aswell as maintenance.
    
    A Perk, maybe not, but I would give my right arm for one. In all
    fairness, there would be a lot of "nift" people out there if they did
    not qualify for the scheme.
    
    Carl.
    

Re .12>	The sooner all company funded car schemes are a thing of
      >	the past the better...

	Why??

      >	I think everybody should be responsible for getting their
      >	own insurance.

       	Again, WHY??

       Some controversial remarks there. On what do you base your
       opinions?

       Ian.

    
    82 miles a day ?   pffft, a mere bagatelle :-)
    
    my poor li'l mini has done over 55000 in 2 years ! 
    
    and that is *just* on commuting...and I would certainly be miffed if
    didn't qualify ;-)

    
    Doug, If we have Comp Cover (like wot you say my �500/yr gets me)
    why does my cost centre keep getting hit with costs from PHH. I
    also don't think that we get a particularly good deal out of PHH
    either. I ordered a car with mudflaps all round. A front flap fell
    off (it's a renault) and I asked the garage to replace it when it
    was in for a service. When I got back to pick it up the garage had
    been told by PHH the I was to pay for that myself as it wasn't covered
    under the lease! I had ordered a car with 4 mudflaps, and as far
    as I was concerned was paying a lease for a car in that condition,
    not three. Fortunately I was able to get thru to PHH by phone and
    "persuade" them that what they were expecting wasn't on. I think
    the phrase I used ended in "off". When I have been getting through
    my exercises in futility (see note several back) I have made darn
    sure that the responsibility for ANYTHING going wrong (except misuse
    or accident damage) is covered, which seems not to be the deal we
    get out of PHH.

    Re .15.......
                                                           
    Doug, you'd better help me understand what's being said, cos I sure
    am confused.....
    
    If we have a fleet of 4000 cars, and a bond costs �10,000 that makes
    the costfor a bond/car to be �2.50 whgich is awhole lot less than
    the cost of insurance. Whoever said life had to be easy? Seems like
    theres a whole lot of expense that's passed on perhaps unneceesarily.
    I know what we'd be told if we treated our customers that way!

re.20 & others...

The 'Drive & Survive' course bumf states that DEC drivers have an above average
chance of an accident, compared with private motorists.

This and the insurance report that was on the radio/tv/papers last week, seems
to indicate that company car drivers don't look after their car as well as
folk that own their own car. Therefore they tend to take greater risks when
driving.

Or do they?

If I knew that DEC/PHH/Hertz were going to pay for tyres & servicing, then I
wonder if my driving style would change to include wheelspin starts,
handbrake turns (OK I'm being a bit extreme here) -but do you see what I mean?



...Art.

    
    BTW, it's likely to be a tough budget. You can almost guarantee
    that the tax claw-back on company cars will be increased - the
    Tories have already said so on many occasions.
    
    My leasemobile is due for renewal shortly. No way until I understand
    what I am in for from the taxman.
    
    If, like me, you are just as happy driving around in a 2 or 3 year
    old Jag or Lancia Turbo, not much point in a lease car - especially
    if know how to find your way around under the bonnet.
    
    My current thinking is to replace my Mazda 626GT is to take the
    cash, & run a XJ-S cabriolet (#12-15k at auction), plus a Lancia Delta 
    for commuting to office (#2k max). 
    
    Several advantages -
    
    	a. I've got a capital asset (increasing in value if I shop
           carefully)
           
    	b. Got a spare to cover any mechanicals/services
    
    	c. Variety
    
    	d. I can get rid of either in a week if I don't like them anymore
    
    	e. Still got wheels if I leave DEC
    
    
    	Cons -
    
    
    	a. Insce - Gp 9 on Jag. Not bad through Jag Drivers Club, if
           you are an old man like me.
           
        b. V12 not the world's easiest vehicle to service
    
    

People with long commute distances are part of what puts me off the lease 
scheme. I'd be paying for there extra miles. If I had long commute 
distances (60 miles a day plus) it would be worthwhile leasing.

Dave.

    Maybe we should be given the chance to opt out of the
    Carfleet+PHH�Hertz lease deal and allowed to go it alone.
    
    Steven

    
    Re: .27
    
    I don't think there is anything to stop you "going it alone".

    
    re the comments on the increased number of accidents in DEC lease
    cars... 
    
    How often do you hear people say "It's only the company car" ?
    How many of you would buy an ex-company/hire car, (if you didn't
    know who'd had it before)
    
    If, as John (I think) suggested, people had to pay for their own
    insurance they would maybe be a bit more careful. 

    Why do'nt the company put the car lease scheme out to competitive
    tender ?
    
    Just an idea.
    
    Grant

    Re .25
    
    Colin, what about the capital cost of financing what you propose?
    or are you going to sell all your toys?
    
    Are we able to duck out of the scheme, once in? My current car was
    signed up before the last round of changes to the scheme and as
    far as I am able to remember, the current implementation doesn't
    allow exit once in. I can still choose not to go in for another
    lease 'cos that was an option under the old sheme (which technically
    I am in) but not under the present. And if you are a Supplement
    receiver, your contract of employment REQUIRES you to take a lease
    car.

    The things against going it "alone" i.e. off your own back is that
    there are little loopholes to be overcome: like for instance not
    being able to claim the cost as a business expense (and therefore
    tax-deductible) and not being able to get the VAT refunded as an 
    individual.

re last: when I got my current lease car (early last year) I was told that as 
it was my first new car under the new scheme (came in in either late 1988 or 
January 1989) that I now had a choice: I could take a car under the scheme or 
"opt out" (not that the company would help me to buy the car I need to do the 
job of course, but thats a different rathole). If I opted in then I was in for 
life: in future when the lease expires I *must* lease another.

Whilst my current lease car was a matter of expediency: I was moving house and 
needed a large estate and there was a convenient quote open for a Renault Espace
my intention now is that when I replace it next the next car will be one I wish 
to buy, then when its lease is over I'll get a lease on a 2CV or similar and my
wife can drive that whilst I drive the car I've just bought for its natural 
life.

The problem with the scheme for me is this: if I were a speed freak or wanted a
hot hatchback then all would be well, but I don't: I want a car suitable for
exploring the country and for camping etc. And contrary to opinion the scheme 
doesn't allow you to have anything you want - I'd like an UMM Alter II but am
under no illusions that I would be allowed to have one, so I must move up market
(and up cost) to get something (a Land Rover Discovery, Range Rover of 
Mitsubishi Shogun perhaps)that is considered in keeping with a company 
image (in over ten years with the company I have only taken a customer in my 
car once - and that customer drove a Land Rover as a personal car so would 
hardly have objected to the Alter, despite which the outside possibility that I
might need to impress somebody is taken as a reason to force me to subsidise the 
company image at my own expense.) 

So if we could all have our druthers I'd like the scheme to recognise that what
most people need is transportation - to and from home and to and from customer 
sites. The very small number of people who actually entertain customers should
get a suitable limo as a "freebie", and the rest of us should get the basic 
transportation we are prepared to pay for. I'd even be prepared to pay for it
post tax, as long as it didn't mean an effective pay-cut of several thousand 
pounds - after all then perhaps the government would stop calling it a perk and
taxing me on something I do most reluctantly indeed.

In summary lets do away with the present scheme, give "qualified" users a pay 
rise to compensate for the loss, or a simple market supplement if you prefer, 
and then let everybody lease *anything* they want if they want to (or have to 
if they can't afford the deposit or get sufficient credit to buy a new car). 
Since it isn't a company car it shouldn't be taxable. A few people (sales folk 
mainly) have to have a flash set of wheels to take out customers and they 
should be able to borrow something suitable from an office pool (a bit like 
booking a conference room).

/. Ian .\

XJ-s's, even the convertibles, are not yet appreciating assets although they can
be persuaded to *hold* their value with lots of TLC.

If you want a real appreciating asset, buy an E-type, still avaliable for under 
15K, and lavish your attentions on that instead.

	The trouble with "Company Cars" is that they invoke
	an aura of "don't care" about the place.

	Consequently UK car prices are the highest around, and
	the attitude of dealer servicing is offhand. Cars are
	driven badly, parked anywhere, carry anything - it's all
	been said before - people don't care so much.

	Insurance companies often serve to separate the immature
	and reckless from the most powerful weaponry. Without
	this control there will be some pretty silly/dangerous
	combinations stalking the streets.

	This seems to be a British obsession, I know of no other
	country where people don't own their own cars to such an 
	extent. Lawson agreed and had been tilting the financial
	scales against company cars for years. I imagine this trend
	will continue. 

	Certainly pay will rise to compensate for losses and the
	overall effect will be for better more economical motoring
	if 'company cars' are put to rest.

	-John

    If you were on a lease PRIOR to the implementation of the present
    scheme (december 88?), Then you get the one-time option to quit the
    scheme. If you do you get the base car equivalent (before VAT) of
    around 2875 (according ot the latest quotes), plus any level supplement
    you may be entitled to.
    
    If you opt to continue in the scheme, then you are in for good. It is
    no good ordering anything less than the "standard" car (sierra 1.8L,
    Cavalier 1.6L, Escort 1.6ghia {not injection}) as you don't get any
    "refund" of the unused portion of the base car allowance (2875 +VAT
    equates to 3306). The main reason vehicles below this are quoted is for
    those who are not eligable for a company car, but lease one of their
    own bat.
    
    One of the major attactions of the scheme to me (and many I speak to)
    is the 'worry-free' element. i.e., whatever happens, whatever goes
    wrong, you just put it in, get it fixed, continue smiling.
    
    The major downer at the moment is the unpredictability of the tax man.
    After the doubling in 88 the chancellor predicted the same in 89, but
    then only increased it by a third. however, his declared intent was to
    eventually tax it fully at it's "equivalent value" of around 3500.
    
    Richard

    re:35
    
    1. I DO care about 'my' company car, at least as much as about the car
    I used to own, in so much as if I abuse it, it's likely to wind up with
    me in the hospital, if I'm lucky !! The chief advantage of course is,
    *if* it breaks down, it does not cost me anything to repair. Yep, that
    makes it a perk.
    
    2. Car prices are held artifically high in the UK by the manufacturers.
    After 1992, either prices here will have to drop, or those abroad rise.
    I fail to see how the large proportion of company cars in the UK makes
    our prices so much higher.
    
    3. Our company insurance is third party (fire & theft too, I think). It
    is NOT comprehensive. Therefore, if I bend the car, my cost centre
    pays, and my manager bends my ear (or other suitable part of my
    anatomy). However, it does NOT contribute to higher insurance costs, as
    the insurance company does not pay.
    
    re: 36 (I think)
    
    I don't object to being taxed on my company car. It is a perk as I use
    it for personal mileage. However, it is also a tool of the trade, upon
    which one can normally claim tax relief. This is why any contribution
    that we make to the cost of the car is tax deductible. So, I object to
    paying tax on the full value of the car. The tax system should be
    skewed more in favour of those who NEED a car for work, and less those
    who have it as a perk.
    
    Finally, I think we are getting off the point. We were talking about
    the lease scheme as operated by Digital, not the rights and wrongs of
    company cars. Somebody suggested that we put the lease scheme out to
    tender. I believe that other quotes have been put forward by companies
    other than PHH/Hertz. However, they would have a predictable effect on
    our fleet department. (Think about it, see my earlier reply !!) Hence
    they were rejected.
    
    Until Gulliver visits car fleet with a tommy gun, I suggest that little
    will change, certainly with regards to cost !!
    
    Colin
    
    P.S. To all those reading this from car fleet, the characters
    represented in the above replies are purely fictitious, and bear no
    relation to any person either living or dead.
    
    
    Colour by Monochrome.

>    I don't object to being taxed on my company car. It is a perk as I use
>    it for personal mileage. However, it is also a tool of the trade, upon
>    which one can normally claim tax relief. This is why any contribution
>    that we make to the cost of the car is tax deductible. So, I object to
>    paying tax on the full value of the car. The tax system should be
>    skewed more in favour of those who NEED a car for work, and less those
>    who have it as a perk.
    
    I agree, as we are paid by the mile for business use, why can't there
    be a sliding scale based on business miles driven.

    
    There is a sliding scale which takes the form
    
    Business attributable miles/annum	0-2500		tax factor 1.5
    -----------  "  -----------------	2501-18500	tax factor 1.0
    -----------  "  -----------------   18501- xxxxx	tax factor 0.5
    
    the factors modify the annual cost in terms of loss of tax code.
    
    The miles assessed are those that the company declares on your annual
    P11D return to HMIofT.
    
    The other modifiers of course are engine size and value.

	It would be interesting to compare the cost of having a company
	car in the U.K and here, in Holland.	

	Size of engine and/or price and/or private/business miles does not
	affect the final calculation.

	Well so far no problem. Now we come to what *you* pay for the company
	car. The Tax man reckons the car should last you about 5 years. So 
	let's see, your 'insert_name_of_company_car' cost �15,000. This
	taking into account the 5 year period is divided by 5, result � 3,000
	pounds. The � 3,000 is classed as unearned income, this is then added
	your annual gross income and taxed, which invariably puts this into the
	50% slot. So the car ends up costing *you* about �1,500 in personal tax.

	How does this compare to U.K. ?

	Gordon

    Responding to .22,.23 and .37, I'll try and explain how I arrange
    the company lease car insurance.  Each car pays a flat (fleet-rated)
    premium per year which my group uses, in part to buy Third Party
    Insurance from a commercial insurer, the Zurich, in part to buy
    an Uninsured Loss Recovery Service and in part to fund the cost
    of own damage.  The income from the fleet should match the costs
    of these various parts.
    
    The car user sees "comprehensive", the economics/mechanics of that
    means that it is cheaper for Digital/User because the insurance
    companies admin costs and profit margin are for the greater part
    excluded from the equation.  The salaries and on costs for my group
    are also not in that equation.
    
    If a car is damaged, the repair costs do not hit a cost centre they
    are charged to the Insurance Fund assuming the driver has completed
    an Accident Report form and followed our published procedures. 
    If we cannot obtain a completed form after exhaustive efforts, but are
    presented with an invoice we have no option but to hit the cost
    centre of the registered user of the car.  Similarly if the driver
    pays for repair costs himself, and claims back on expenses, that
    expense form will be passed to us by Expenses for countersigning
    to the Insurance Fund, not the Cost Centre.
    
    These methods of self-funding risk management are common among large
    corporations where the risks are quantifiable and manageable.                                                                    

    Dick .22
    
    In my reply .41 I didn't address your "costs from PHH" problem because
    it is outside my remit.  I am picking up "insurance".  The infamous
    SMR (service maintenance and repair) is part of the PHH deal we
    have and would be addressed by the appropriate people ie Purchasing
    and the Cost Centre Manager.

Re: .40

Seems to me the the Dutch way is about right.

In the UK the tax system works as follows:

If you are provided with a company car that you have to pay tax on an
amount that is usually a fraction of the cost of the car.  The taxable 
amount is based on several factors:

	Car engine size
	New cost of car if engine larger then a certain size
	Number of miles driven on business (x2.0, x1.0 or x0.5 factor)
	If the car is over a certain age the taxable amount is reduced.


jb

The ideal method of handling car use for business purposes.

One of two choices - company provided car or employee provided car.

Company provided cars that are not essential to an employee performing
their normal work duties (i.e. driving less than 5000 business miles per
year), or costing over an amount specified by the tax authorities, would be
treated as a taxable benefit equal to the full cost to the company of
providing the car and otherwise treated as an employee provided car. 

The company would have to publish a single car milage cost in a range
specified by the tax authorities. 

Employees electing to use a company provided car would have to pay the 
milage cost for any non-business distance travelled (i.e. for private and 
travel to work use).  These employees will also have all their vehicle 
operating costs (fuel, etc.) paid in full by the company.

Employees electing to use an employee provided car would be paid the milage 
cost for any business distance travelled.

Today we could start with the car price threshold set at �15 000 and the 
milage rate in the band of �0.20 to �0.35 per mile.

jb

    
    ...another rathole !
    
    Is anyone out there familiar enough with the company car tax, to know
    what the status of diesel cars/engine size is ?
    
    I think that one of the "higher tax bracket" thresholds for petrol
    vehicles is 1400 cc, is it the same for diesel, or has the fact that
    diesel engines do  not produce the same power output as petrol, been
    taken into consideration.
    
    i.e. is the higher tax bracket for diesel cars, 1600 ?

Currently there is no difference for diesel,

the bands on engine size are

a) under 1400 cc
b) 1401-2000 cc
c) over 2000 cc

the appropriate cost bands are

d) � 19251 - 29000
e) over � 29000

Unfortunately many cars with petrol engines in class (b) move into (c) when
the diesel option is taken.

/. Ian .\

    
    Diesels are treated the same, I think.
    
    The Categories are :-
    
    Up to 1400cc	Value �1400
    
    Up to 2000cc	Value �1850
    
    2001cc Upwards	Value �2950
    
    Mark

    Can I just thank Doug Arnold for his contribution in .41/.42. It's nice
    once in a while to have the 'real' facts of the matter, stops us all
    from pushing our interpretation as the truth. :-)
    
    Richard

	One interesting point in Holland is the 20% value calculation is
	always on the price of the car when new. So if, as I do, you have
	your own "one man company" and buy a second hand car , to perhaps
	cut down the outgoings a bit, your still taxed on it's new value.

	I bought a second hand BMW 323i a few years ago before I realised this
	and had a bit of a shock when I got taxed on it's new value :-(
	
	Gordon 

	Thinks... I wonder if this works for Vintage cars, 1930's blower Bentley
		  new price �1500... :-)

    re .39
    
    When I mentioned a sliding scale, I should have included something
    meaning continously variable.
    
    The existing tax scales are to my mind stepped, as they don't slide
    very much.  It's rather frustrating if you drive 17,900 miles in a tax
    year and another person drives 2,600 - you pay the same tax, guess who
    really needs a car for their job.  

    Anyone know if UK Car Fleet was blown away recently?? I'm waiting for
    quotes to come back, submitted before Christmas. I think(!) one is one
    VTX, but I've not heard anything from fleet. 
    
    Also it seems VTX hasn't been updated since 26th Jan. Anyone got any
    clues about what's going on??
    
    Cheers,
    
    Greg

    
    Chase them up....
    
    I had the same thing happen to me, an automatic All-in-1 mail should
    have been sent out but wasn't.   

    
    1.0 Nova Std   2417
    1.5 Nova TD    3008
    
    
    IMHO both of these quotes are extortionate.   The small cars appear to
    be subsidising the" excessively expensive to buy" cars.

    I too am still waiting for quotes to come back.......
    
    Car Fleet seem to be piggy in the middle between the total incompetency
    of Hertz and PHH.
    
    And I don't trust either.....

    Re: 946.15
    
    > Everyone I've spoken to thinks the lease scheme is a rip-off.  There
    > seems to be a lot of unhappy feeling about it in this note [946 - ed].
    > So why do people do it?
    
    Well, there used to be a considerable tax advantage, sadly no more. 
    But I still have several reasons for preferring to lease:
    
    1. No capital expediture, and I have a new car every 2� years
    2. I don't have the hassle of selling a car when I want to change.
    3. I don't have to pay any servicing or maintenance charges.
    4. I don't have to pay any insurance.
    5. I don't have to pay road tax.
    6. If my car is off the road because it breaks, I get a lease car for
       no charge.
    
    Yes, I know that the above costs are built into the amount I pay
    monthly, but I'd rather do that and have care-free and paperwork-free
    motoring with no unexpected bills.
    
    Jeff.

re.55:

>    1. No capital expediture, and I have a new car every 2� years

For a very small one time capital investment you can buy a new car and by 
trading in still get your new car every <?> whatever.

>    2. I don't have the hassle of selling a car when I want to change.

Nor do I, I trade it in.

>    3. I don't have to pay any servicing or maintenance charges.
>    4. I don't have to pay any insurance.
>    5. I don't have to pay road tax.

It's all included in the lease cost and because you pay the average 
insurance cost, unless you are young or dangerous, you are paying over the 
odds (also company/lease cars are targets for servicing rip-offs).

>    6. If my car is off the road because it breaks, I get a lease car for
>       no charge.

Now I think this is an advantage, although if your car's under manuf.
warranty you can get this bene with some insistance (did it once).

Regarding your last comments, you are paying several hundred pounds a year 
more than a private car owner for not having to worry about bills. That's 
expensive.

I save approx. 600 pounds a year by opting out of the scheme.

Dave.

�   6. If my car is off the road because it breaks, I get a lease car for
�       no charge.

Having had my Espace (costing well over �1000 a year of my money to lease) off
the road for 13 weeks whilst the body shop waited for Renault UK to provide the
only frame jig in the Uk to straighten it, I can assure you that this is a
marginal benefit for I had a series of pathetic group B and C hire cars that
would be freebies on the lease scheme, whilst I continued to pay the high lease.

Your 6 would only be a valid benefit if you got an "equivalent" lease car at no
*additional* charge.

/. Ian .\

    >> 2. I don't have the hassle of selling a car when I want to change.
    >
    > Nor do I, I trade it in.
    
    Ah well, there you go.  My first lease car was my first new car.
    
    Jeff.

I looked at the lease scheme several years ago.

It seemed to me that it was only of benefit if you wanted to have a new
car.  If you (like me) are quite happy with a used car, then the lease
scheme is a waste of money.

jb

    
    The *only* reason why I have a lease car, is because there is no
    alternative to using a car to get to work.
    
    I lost the use of my golf for 3 months (thanks to a pratt who should
    never have been allowed on the roads...)   The expenditure for the 3
    months on hire cars was totally prohibitive.  I worked in Reading then,
    so, although very inconvenient (lack of trains) it was possible to
    commute by train.  
    
    I could not get into work if I lost the use of my car now.  Hence the
    lease car.
    
    Even so, I am now considering going back to 2nd hand death traps, being
    one of those who do not qualify for a supplement and PHH and Hertz are
    quoting totally rediculous lease charges for tiny cars.
    
    It is *NOT* a perk.....it is a rip off...
    
    if anyone disagrees with this, please explain why having a lease car is
    a perk, when one is having to pay the whole cost of having one ?

re .-1>            -< and I am *STILL* taxed on it !!!!!! >-

       You are taxed on the car, but the lease cost should be taken out
       of your GROSS salary, so you don't pay tax on the amount you're
       paying.

       A car up to 1400cc doing less than 2,500 business miles a year is
       taxed as a benefit of �2,100. Therefore you need to paying more
       than that a year to get any tax advantage.

       Ian.

    
    Jane,
    
    At one point the lease charge was taken out of employees' salaries
    BEFORE tax. Is this still the case? If so, it IS a perk as you are
    effectively paying only 75% of the lease cost.
    
    Whether or not that cost is fair is another matter. Interestingly,
    so far, my Renault has been much cheaper to buy (on 4.9% APR finance)
    and service than it would have been to lease.
    
    When I've sold it, I'll add up all the sums, but my accountant pointed
    out to me once that garages wouldn't push leasing so happily if
    there wasn't something in it for them!
    
    Mark

    When I joined Digital four years ago, I thought about a lease car. I
    estimated it would cost around �2000 (before tax) and that I'd have to
    have it for three years - �6000 (again, before tax).
    
    In the end, I bought a car cash for �5000, reaped the benefit of not
    losing a sizeable chunk from my salary. In four years, not much has
    gone wrong. True, I do pay car tax, insurance, maintenance, but it's
    mine, it's worth �3200 and I pay �500 a year for it for bills.
    
    Still, if it had gone wrong, or whatever, THEN the disadvantages would
    be felt.
    
    Pete.

    Presumably the 4.5% finance required a deposit. Have you counted lost
    interest on this deposit ?
    
    Mark

   Below are some tables I drew up when I was trying to work out what
   the "cash equivalent" would be of taking the supplement as salary
   and buying car. I also wanted to compare the cost of leasing and
   buying. I hope its correct.


   Personal Allowance     : Taxman reduces your personal allowance
                            by this sum depending on size of engine. 

   Nett Cost Lost Allow   : Because your personal allowance is reduced
                            you pay more tax; the exact amount you pay
                            will depend on the rate at which you already
                            pay tax.
   Car
   Supplement (cash value): If you didn't take a car, this is what would
                            be left after the taxman had taken his slice.
                            Again, the amount will depend on the rate
                            you pay tax.
                            This figure is the basic car supplement
                            figure. 

   Yearly Cost (Nett)     : Total amount removed from salary after tax
                            to pay for lease car.
    
   Monthly Cost (Nett)    : Real after tax cost per month of the car.
                            This figure represents the money you could
                            spend buying a car.

                

             
   Upto 1400cc  : Personal Allowance reduced by �1,400 

     Tax       Nett Cost     Supplement       Yearly          Monthly
     Rate      lost allow    (cash value)     Cost (Nett)     Cost (Nett)

     25%          350          2063           2413            �201.08
     40%          560          1650           2210            �184.16



   Upto 2000cc  : Personal Allowance reduced by �1,850 

     Tax       Nett Cost     Supplement       Yearly          Monthly
     Rate      lost allow    (cash value)     Cost (Nett)     Cost (Nett)

     25%          463          2063           2526            �210.50
     40%          740          1650           2390            �199.16



   Over 2000cc  : Personal Allowance reduced by �2,950 

     Tax       Nett Cost     Supplement       Yearly          Monthly
     Rate      lost allow    (cash value)     Cost (Nett)     Cost (Nett)

     25%          738          2063           2801            �233.42
     40%         1180          1650           2830            �235.83



   Notes:

   For cars whose cost is greater than the "supplement", take the right 
   hand figure of the quote "XXXX/YYYY" and deduct tax at the appropriate 
   rate to work out the cash cost.

   I believe that the "supplement taken as salary" is �2,750 before tax. 
   I think this figure is only recalculated annually. The value of the 
   "supplement taken as a lease car" is recalculated every quarter and
   includes VAT etc. 

   The car supplement is now �3421, so there is getting to be a
   considerable difference between the "cash" and its equivalent
   purchasing power as a lease (�651 p.a).

    Re: .63
    
    > In the end, I bought a car cash for �5000, 
    
    To be a valid comparison, any sums you do have to include the interest
    you would have gained had you invested this amount over the time you
    have the car, less inflation.
    
    Jeff.

    
    Re: .65
    
    but I have a Mini (1000cc) and my Personal Allowance is being reduced
    by 1850 !!!
    
    I'm being swindled !
    
    :-(

    
    Re - the reply that had the useful tax figures
    
    Don't see an entry that reflects that cost also hits the equation.
    Think there are 3 groups -
    
    	a. <19250 pds
    	b. >19251 pds -?
    	c. >?
    
    Think the top break is quite high - 30K+?
    
    19250 is nothing special now - even a Sierra can cost 25k+, & plenty
    of quite ordinary cars are >20k.
    
    Colin Osborne (who is cursing 'cos the new Mazda 626 4wd has a 2.2
    engine - turbo on the 2 litre 16v would be more tax efficient)

    Re .68......
    
    Colin, I think that the third break point is �27,500 or a tad within
    that kind of number. Don't forget too that miles <2,500/yr multiply
    the scale charge by 1.5 and >18,500/yr divide the scale charge by
    2.
    
    Since all these contorted and convoluted costs and charges are all
    inter-related, I wouldn't have thought that it was beyond the wit
    of payroll to be able to calculate the amount that you would see
    in your salary slip for you: they have all the other pertinant details
    (gross salary, tax code, AVC's, ESPP payments etc). After all, the
    thing that matters is what's left after all the hands have dipped
    into your pocket.
                     
                     
    I'd even wager that they could use a computer or some other new fangled
    gadget to do it, too. Now, who makes computers around here ....... ? 
          
    ;^)......

Re .66

Any calculations that take into account loss of interest on amounts invested are
generally invalid for the simple reason that 99% of us would spend the cash on
something else anyway so there is no interest to consider!  How amny of the
noters in this file (apart from one or two) can leave thousands lying in the
bank or building society or even, surprise surprise, DEC stock whene there's
the latest, fastest, gizzmo-est new car out there to tempt us?  8-)

    
    Re .70
    
    Or even an old one in need of restoration!
    
    Mark :^)

    Re: .67
  >  but I have a Mini (1000cc) and my Personal Allowance is being reduced
  >  by 1850 !!!    I'm being swindled !
    
       You certainly are!

       On the plus side, I have found the Tax office very helpful. I
       hadn't paid any tax on my car since receiving it 18 months ago.
       Last Thursday, in a fit of conscience brought on by this topic, I
       phoned them. They were able to tell me straight away how much I
       owed, and on Saturday I received notification of my new tax codes
       to take into account the back payments. And they only charged me
       for the current tax year.

       If your tax office is Portsmouth (ref 814/D1), the phone number is
       (0705) 664931, ext 524. 

       Ian.

    Re: .66
    
    Interest gained? Depends where I might have invested the �5000. If a
    building society account, so much, if in shares, who knows? As it is I
    have a car that I've used for about four years, that has been valued at
    �3200...
    
    I agree I haven't sat down and tried to calculate things precisely - I
    took the simplistic arithmetic - �6000 over three years, as compared to
    �5000 initially. In fact it's worse than �6000 now, it's �8000 since
    it's around �2000 a year...
    
    Pete.

   Re. Original Market Value - this is a follow-on from .65 

   
   Original Market Value (�19,251 - �29,000)
   Personal Allowance reduced by �3,850 

     Tax       Nett Cost     Supplement       Yearly          Monthly
     Rate      lost allow    (cash value)     Cost (Nett)     Cost (Nett)

     25%          963          2063           3026            �252.16
     40%         1540          1650           3190            �265.83




   Further Notes:

   Mileage : All these costs have been based on the assumption that
   business mileage will be between 2,500 and 18,000 miles. (This
   excludes journies to and from work).  As has already been pointed
   out, the tax cost (lost allowance) will be 50% higher if less than
   2,500 business miles are done. If more than 18,000 miles are done
   then the tax cost (lost allowance) is halved.

   There are also different "scale" rates if the vehicle is more than
   4yrs old.

    
       I've just had a look at the Fleet section in VTX. If you are like
       me and very rarely use the FLEET NEWS option, have a look now.
       It's changed quite a lot since I last looked. There are now 24
       options, including a complete Tax table.

       Ian.

    Talking of Tax & cars....       
                                    
    I have had a company car for 18 months now, and although Digital report
    it on my P11D, I don't seem to be paying for it in any shape or
    form...in other words, it doesn't appear in my husbands' tax coding or
    mine! 
                                                  
    What should I be doing about this.....    
                           
    Regards
    ALEX                       
          

>>        <<< Note 925.68 by CHEFS::OSBORNEC "Laverda's broke, so am I" >>>
>>                     -< Taxman hits u at repmobile prices >-

>>    19250 is nothing special now - even a Sierra can cost 25k+, & plenty
>>    of quite ordinary cars are >20k.
>>    
>>    Colin Osborne (who is cursing 'cos the new Mazda 626 4wd has a 2.2
>>    engine - turbo on the 2 litre 16v would be more tax efficient)

    That's the problem! a high proportion of people on the scheme ** WOULD**
    Think this excessive. Many don't have yearly salaries that approach
    this and could NEVER NEVER afford a car of this cost. 
    
    I would say that plenty of >>ordinary<< cars cost between 8 and 10K! a
    sierra costing 25K would be a 4x4 cossie or some such. (A 2.0i GL would
    set you back about 11-12K).
    
    To us a lease cost of 3300, against a car-tax of 2400 is a marginal
    benefit and thus we agonise over the pro's and con's.
    
    
    Now then, back on the can we can't we afford it, I too have done a
    spreadsheet of the true costs, (2020) I take into account the fact that
    I don't have the cash to put down a deposit, I'd have to borrow TOTAL
    car price for purchase. since I don't have the spare cash, the interest
    on it is mythical.
    
    I have calculated that I COULD NOT purchase and run THE IDENTICAL car
    to the one I would lease with the same amout of money (i.e. the
    allowances). Part of the equation is in the residual value of the car
    which I would have to pay for in the first place. 
    
    So you either pay extra for the same, or compare new oranges with stale
    lemons :-).
    
    Richard

Re .77     I'd be interested in seeing the assumptions built into your model
Richard as the latest information for an "ordinary car" (one costing about 8 to
10K for example) can actually work out cheaper buying than leasing.  Of course
there are all sorts of weird rules according to business use etc. which affect
the outcome, which is why I'd like to know the model assumptions you've used.

Why are lease car users in Ayr dropping out of the scheme like rats abandoning
a sinking ship?  Because they're discovering they can BUY the same car and run 
it for three years themselves for LESS than the lease costs!  None of them are
business users I hasten to add (is *anyone* in manufacturing???).

	re .76                                    
>    I have had a company car for 18 months now, and although Digital report
>    it on my P11D, I don't seem to be paying for it in any shape or
>    form...in other words, it doesn't appear in my husbands' tax coding or
>    mine! 
>    What should I be doing about this.....    

       Write and tell them! Or phone. When I did it (see previous) they
       fixed it straight away, and reclaimed the unpaid tax by adjusting
       my code for next year.

       It seems that the Tax office will only tax you if YOU write and
       tell them you have a company car. Don't rely on any notification
       by Digital. It also seems that, when it comes to any tax owed,
       they usually only bother with the previous year. A collegue has
       just 'owned up' to not paying tax after 2� years, but is only
       being charged for the last one. It probably depends which Tax
       office you're with.

       Ian.

   Below is an example of purchase v lease costs. This is not meant to
   be exact and if anything, I think underestimates the cost of owning
   your own car. Its just for discussion. Anyone spot any major items
   missing?



   Sierra 2.0GL example
   --------------------


   Totals for 30 months/30,000 miles

   Service Cost    :  500       (�80 minor, �130 major)
   Insurance       :  675       (35+ Oxford area - full NCB)
   Parts           :  120       (Brake pads/Tyres - 1 set)         
   1 Yr Warranty   :  140       (making 24months total) 
   Road Fund       :  250
                    -----

   Tot Running Cst : 1,685



   Depreciation    : 3,800        On Original Cost of �9,300 (Aug 87)
                                  Trade in value against new : �5,500
                                

                    ------
   Total           � 5,485



                                 Price new today : �11,750 (inc deliv)

   Finance cost    � 1,762       �11,750 borrowed at 6% flat rate (10% apr)
                                 (Cheap, except for special deals)

   Total           � 7,247



   Purchase
   Cost per month :   �241.56    Includes everything, but depreciation
                                 of only �3,800 in 30 months is low. 
                                 Higher mileage = much higher depreciation  
                                 Accidents? 
                                 Non-warranty repairs?

   Lease 
   Cost per month :   �220.00     �3,800/400 (lease quote)
                                  Drive as many miles as you like
                                  Hire car if off the road
                                  No unexpected bills


   But what will the Chancellor do?????
   Will lease costs fall if interest rates fall?????
   How hard do you drive your car????

    
    If your example person is paying �675 for a Sierra with full NCB they
    must be either  :-
    
    i) Stupid
    
    OR
    
    ii) An international terrorist renowned for car bombings!
    
    This sounds MUCH too high. I'm 28 with a full NCB, I have a Renault
    5GT Turbo (must be a higher group) and my insurance costs are less
    than � the �675 you use in your example.
    
    Mark    

re.81 
      
    
    �If your example person is paying �675 for a Sierra with full NCB they
    �must be either  :-
    

   Sorry if this is not clear - all costs are based around 30 months/30,000

   So the �675 is for 30 months!  Not 12!

   R.

    
    Oh yeah,
    
    I missed that!
    
    Mark

Well, the car fleet VTX seems to have sorted itself out......almost.

If you look through the VTX in PRICE order something strange appears. There
are the usual two prices (non-sup/sup) and are listed in non-sup order. In this
case I would expect the sup price to be in order to but no, it jumps up and down
by about �100pa. Can anyone explain this?

Jc

   It seems that the "car allowance" - call it what you will -, 
   the �3306 has become �3421, hence the "jumps".

   Richard.

I thought that changed a few months back.

Look at these...

   6   VAUXHALL CAVALIER SRI 130 HATCHBACK      2000       4043/  622
   7   VAUXHALL CAVALIER SRI 130 HATCHBACK      2000       4043/  622
   8   VAUXHALL CAVALIER SRI 130 HATCHBACK      2000       4043/  622
   9   VAUXHALL CAVALIER SRI 130 SALOON         2000       4043/  622
  10   VAUXHALL CAVALIER SRI 130 HATCHBACK      2000       4043/  737
  11   VAUXHALL CAVALIER SRI 130 HATCHBACK      2000       4043/  737
  12   VAUXHALL CAVALIER SRI 130 HATCHBACK      2000       4043/  737
  13   VAUXHALL CAVALIER SRI 130 HATCHBACK      2000       4043/  737
  14   VAUXHALL CAVALIER SRI 130 HATCHBACK      2000       4043/  737
  15   VW GOLF GTI HATCHBACK                    1800       4049/  628
  16   VAUXHALL CAVALIER SRI 130 HATCHBACK      2000       4053/  746
       
Notice 6->14 are all the same non-sup price and around �100 different. 6 & 14
expire the same day so I expect they were produced at the same time.

Inspection of the individual quotes would imply that the sup holder price is
"correct" - the more expensive ones have more goodies. So much for the
new systems... :-(

Jc

>>                    <<< Note 925.80 by CURRNT::JENKINS_R >>>
>>                                -< Buy yer own >-

    Ah but even with your incredible finance deals, where can you only pay
    the depreciation?. You pay the full whack, and get back the resale
    value.
    
    Hence:
    
>>   Finance cost    � 1,762       �11,750 borrowed at 6% flat rate (10% apr)
    
    Total purchase price	   �13,512
    which over 30 months equals	   �   450  per month JUST FOR PURCHASE !
    
    how else can you purchase this car ???.
    
    Richard

    Of course, one way round this depreciation lark, is to buy/run a
    classic car, of which the vast majority do not depreciate, but infact
    appreciate!,
    If you pick the right one(not too old) then it probably would cost you
    no more to service than the average " made on Friday afternoon car"
    (such as an unlucky sierra!)
    There are alot of desirable classics out there for around � to 2/3rds
    of the price of a Seirra!
    
    But then, thats just my view........
    
    Carl.  

not if you drive it to work each day

    re-1
    fyi, I drive an old vw beetle to work every day, covering an 82 mile
    round trip every day.
    
    Carl.

what I was implying is that if a classic is used as a daily runabout then its
value will inevitably decrease...

1.higher mileage
2.parking scrapes etc etc

...Art.

The value of a true classic lies not in it's mileage but it's desirability.

Anyone who gets a lot of parking scrapes has a problem, but in almost 7 years
of commuting in my Volvo I've never had more than a paint rub which has then
polished out.  Stone chips are the real killers!  But even then, a respray at
7 years old isn't bad - and it's only needing a waist-high anyway.

So why should a "classic" be any different?  Beetles, Pinifarina BL's, Jaguars,
MG's are all used daily by many.  The *only* reason I don't use my E-type in the
winter is that it lets water in via the doors - bad design!  But my wife's
Moggie Traveller is in daily use and thrives on it - and has appreciated by
some 35% since we got it.

Now I wouldn't use a 250GTO as a commute car, but that's another wish ... 8-)

Brian

so you're saying that classic X with 30,000 miles is worth the same as
classic X with 60,000 miles ???

    
    Mileage on classic is pretty much irrelevant. What matters is
    condition.
    
    An A1 classic with 100,000 miles will be worth more than a tatty
    25,000 mile example.
    
    Mark

The following is my interpretation of from Pam Dormer's Fleet presentation:

When you put in a request for a Car Quote, Fleet ask PHH and Hertz for TWO 
quotes each. 

Quote 1 is for 30Mths/30kmiles, and is used to calculate the price
to the driver, regardless of the actual mileage to be done.

Quote 2 is for the mileage you estimate on the form, for a max. 
50k miles over 18/24/30 months. If you do less than 30000 miles in 30 mths, they
go for the 30/30k.

This second quote is used as the basis of the contract that Digital makes with
the lease company. This is intended to ensure that drivers who do high 
mileages do not get unfairly penalised.

From the two sets of quotes, Fleet take the CHEAPEST contract quote, and source
the car from there. However, they also use the CHEAPEST driver quote to 
calculate the cost to the driver, even if that is from the lease company that
they are not using.

The price quoted to the driver is made up as follows:

Let the cheaper 30/30k least cost per month = LC

	Driver cost = (LC*12) + (227.00 insurance contribution) - (Basic Suppl)
	+ (Vat at current rate)

Note that this is NOT the cost of the contract that actually get's made, and 
that as mentioned in a previous note, the actual cost of insurance is 450.00pa

After all this has been done, the overall total cost of running the Fleet for a
year is calculated. From this, Fleet deduct the total value of driver 
contributions, and divide the remainder by the number of cars in the scheme. The
result (4200.00 pa currently) is the amount charged to each cost centre, for 
each car they have - regardless of the make/model/mileage etc. etc. etc.

Note also that the Basic Supplement is the average 30/30 cost over a
Cavalier 1.8L, Escort 1.6 Ghia and Sierra 1.6L, and is reviewed QUARTERLY. The
supplement paid to level 8 + is decided by the compensation and benefits
committee and is only reviewed ANNUALY

So, if I am basic supplement holder, and I take a base car, the cost to my 
take home pay is the tax I pay by code reduction, ie 0.25*1850 = 462.5 pa.
I can't see any way I could possible run a equivalent car, renewing every 2�yrs,
privately - unless I'm missing something!

Dave

   re .86

   The numbers they show are correct. If you don't get a car supplement
   you pay the full whack.
   If you get a car supplement you pay full whack minus supplement.

   Car supplement has just changed - hence the discrepancy.


   Re. buy/lease numbers.

   You don't have to buy the whole car - you can take a finance deal
   over 4yrs, but still only pay interest on 30 months. Then you change
   the car and get a new finance deal.

   Richard.

re .-1,

I agree that the supliment changed recently, but why is the cost �100 different
for two quotes valid for the same period (to the day)?

Jc

    And why, if .96 is correct, do quotes for identical cars vary so much?
    
    John

RE: .86 and last few

With regard to the Cavalier SRI prices (4043 lease cost but 622 or 737 supp 
cost),  I too was unable to understand this apparent discrepancy between 
*identical* cars.... and since I'm considering ordering one of these I 
phoned car fleet...

Quoting each of the quote numbers in turn, I was given the *same* cost to 
driver for all of them i.e. 622

I also queried a couple of other apparently anomalous quotes and was given a
different (more reasonable) figure over the phone.

The fault is therefore with the prices posted on VTX (in this case), rather 
than any quoting wierdness.

Paul

    Talking of typo's - have you noticed the special Ranger Rover quote?
    Got its own category.
    
    Jeff.

    Having just spent most of my lunch break glancing through this file
    I felt that I had to reply as an ex-member of the car fleet group.
    
    I have seen the problems with the implementation of the new system
    and appreciate the inconvenience caused in a minority of cases.
    These have been communicated in most instances as best we could
    but this doesn't seem to matter to some people as they crucify the
    incompetence and knowledge of the fleet group. These people are
    Digital employees and although we realise that a car is such a personal
    item they do deserve the flack and abuse directed at them. Maybe
    the message is to treat them as a fellow member of staff and to
    reduce the amount of telephone problems when the majority can be
    resolved by simply using common sense, by reading the handbook
    supplied and by consulting VTX. 
    
    Enough said I think .........now it's your turn to reply........
    ........go for the kill but no telephone calls please !!
    

    I've recently had quite some fun with getting a quote back. The
    attitude at car fleet varied from "it's not my job" to VERY helpful. I
    feel that most criticism is levelled due to frustation.
    
    For example, one of my quotes had been rejected, and one still had not
    come back. I thought that it would be a simple task for someone to ring
    up the leasing company and ask them why. However it seems Hertz frown
    on this, and hence our fleet people cannot do anything. The person I
    spoke to was very apologetic, but couldn't do much more to help me. As
    far as I was concerned this seemed a pretty silly situation, but no-one
    at Digital could do anything...hence I was frustrated and it would be
    all to easy to put the whole blame on our fleet dpt.
    
    BUT minus brownie points because I have still not had any official
    all-in-1 with my quote details which were submitted on the 19th
    December, now surely one person could just type a message and send it
    to me?
    
    Greg

    re .102,.103
    
    We should all treat fellow employees with courtesy and respect and
    at least let our communications with fleet be pleasantly mannered.
    
    
    However ........ there is no excuse for the treatment that we (the
    end user in this case) get from the originators of the service
    (PHH/Hertz) or the mechanism in between (fleet admin). I wouldn't
    mind but they don't actually "administer" (perhaps manage would
    be a better word to use) my car (all they do is to pay the bills
    and arrange a new tax disc every year and arrange a replacement.
    
    Let's not forget that in the end it is YOURS and MY money that they
    are spending, and as I have said before, as a consumer we are devoid
    of the ability to vote with our feet and take our business elsewhere.
    replacement). 

    
    Re: .103
    
    I sent a quote about the same time as you...beginning of February, I
    gave them a ring, having heard nothing.
    
    Apparently they had had the quotes back on 2nd January, but the
    automatic All-in-1 mail sending bit of the new fleet system hadn't
    worked...
    
    My advise, is to give them a ring.  Your quote has probably been
    sitting there for well over a month !

    >> give them a ring
    
    PAH! I rang every day last week, and on and off for two weeks before
    hand!!
    
    I eventually went for another quote, and mine has appeared today, a lot
    more expensive than the one I went for :-)
    
    Greg

    
    I put in for 2 quotes and only found out what they were by
    looking on VTX. I didn't get anything back from FLEET itself.
    
    One of the previous noters does have a point about the fact that
    its our money that we are spending. Therefore we are paying for
    a service which we do not seem to get.
    
    
    Jeff.

    Have any of you fellow noters had the privilege of working with
    the fleet group recently or are there any volunteers to come and
    lend a hand. 
    
    Obviously you all have plenty of time on your hands to fantasise
    your ideas as to how the fleet system and group work or do not work
    and put them in writing but the vast majority is aload of .........
    Come on and write the facts or not at all. 
    
    ps. Has anyone noticed any input from the fleet group or are they
    too busy processing the 300 daily phone calls, 230 mail messages,
    80 new quotes,30 new orders etc. etc. and this between the 3 full-time
    employees in the group. 
    
    I'm actually a sitting duck just waiting to be shot down so fire
    away............I don't mind honest...........
    
    

    I never had any replies to my quotes, or confirmations of order
    or delivery.  BUT - when I phoned fleet I always got loads of help,
    and my order went thru simply on the strength of those phone calls,
    with no confirmation over the system.  Whenever I went up to fleet,
    the people I met were helpfull - I don't think its thier fault that
    the system doesn't work and/or is overloaded.
                            
    Mikef

    
    The car fleet system has sent me about 10 assorted mails entitled
    "Order Confirmation", Order Acknowledgement", "Delivery
    Acknowledgement", "Requotation Notification", "Requotation
    Acknowledgement", etc... and I'm talking about more than one of each.
    
    Car fleet have been very helpful in trying to explain why it's
    happening, but they can't seem to stop it.
    
    I have taken delivery of the car, notified car fleet, and it's STILL 
    sending me mail !

    If another car arrives for me next week I won't be in the least
    surprised  :-)

     
    It still goes on !!
    
    Today I received not 1, not 2, but 3 mail messages from the Car
    Fleet system. One entitled "Driver price notification" (yes they've
    quoted a new price for a car I've already got !), a "Quotation 
    Acknowledgement" and a "Requotation Notification".
    
    Aaaarrrggghhhhh

    I suppose that the next question is the illogical extension of all
    the previous discussion about the car scheme......
    
    Seems like my replace ment car is now slipping in delivery from
    an originally planned (according to PHH) end of March to a desired
    by the dealer of a dite week 3 May. Phh say wait 'till the beginning
    of the month so that makes it June. Now June is a lot nearer to
    August than my original mental picture of March and I am considering
    asking the garage/Fleet admin to delay delivery until 1 August....
    
    Anybody had any experience of asking that question of Fleet before.
    If so what was the reaction? 

    Re Last....
    
    Yep I did.   maybe not quiet the same but the garage phoned me to say
    that they had my car before I wanted to take delivery.  I asked them if
    they could delay until my date, and they (the garage) agreed.  I must
    add that at all times car fleet were extremely helpful (when I got
    through).  PHH however seemed to get tied in knots at the simplest
    question.  So I dealt just with the garage and fleet.  PS I asked them
    to delay mine by five weeks.  I also got the latest (1990 spec) RS
    Turbo which the garage said I wouldn't have got had I taken the
    origional delivery date.
    
    
    Bruce