At the risk of opening a can of worms! Has anybody experience of these shemes please, and if so cam you advise on the potential liability aspects in the event of an employee being injured and with the employer actually owning the bicycle? I am thinking about such tghings as PUWER, maintenance, inspection etc, and information, instruction (training?), provision of cycle helmets etc. Many thanks in anticipation.

Of course you recall that the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 Section 69 stopped people suing for breach of statutory duty under H&S regulations. This means that case law like Stark v Post Office no longer applies, so no strict liability.

There are 2 different things here 1: Using such equipment for work purposes so all the employer duty laws apply here 2: Using such equipment for one's own pleasure /convenience so all the employer duty laws do not apply here; - and both are addressed differently

Don't tell the tax man that - that's not how it works. It explicitly DOES NOT work if it's a HP agreement - if it's HP then income tax is due on all the repayments. The employee benefits by not paying income tax or VAT on the purchase price. That only works if the employee does not buy the bike, but rather the employer buys the bike, and retains ownership of the bike, and is only providing the bike for the use of the employee. At some point in time, the company can dispose of the bike (eg, by giving it to the employee) but that disposal must be accounted for as per disposal of any other company equipment, so needs to be done at a point when the equipment has negligible value, if a tax charge is to be avoided. Fortunately, by the time a bike is three years old, the taxman will accept it has negligible value. In any other combination, it's a benefit in kind and taxable at the same rate as ordinary pay, on the full purchase price of the bike. For example, if the company actually lent you money to buy a bike, that would be a taxable benefit. You'd then need to pay VAT when you used that money to buy the bike - zero benefit to you. The tax saving is only that providing free use of a bike is a non-taxable benefit, provided the bike is used for commuting to work. The 50% is no longer required, and it was a guideline 50% of the use of the bike for commuting OR 50% of the commuting done by the bike. I don't think it was ever tested in court. The employee would have a tax liability, yes. The company would have to account for it in their accounts and pay tax accordingly.

I stand corrected on the tax/financial side achrn, but my point was that the company isnt really providing the equipment just the means of acquiring it and it is being used for personal non-work purposes and therefore doesnt really give the employer any H&S liability. And I concur with you that there isnt really an issue to answer, unless of course the business is Arkwright and a delivery bike is the vehicle in question! Mind you I think that that till would raise some issues under PUWER!