-
I’ve just availed myself of £130 of free meals on a recent work trip courtesy of the Platinum dining credit.
It’s got me thinking – at what point does cashback enter into the realms of fraud when claiming expenses? For instance, I don’t intend to claim back expenses on a meal I haven’t actually had to pay for – 100% cashback certainly doesn’t feel like I would end up on the right side of company policy or an investigation. But what about paying for something with a 1-2% cashback card? Surely people wouldn’t claim back the cost of their meal minus the cashback component?
So where would you draw the line? How much cashback is too much to claim an expense? Or would you claim back a meal even if you’ve received 100% cashback?
The grey area i’ve considered in the past is what happens with train delay refunds, as long as you still get there, your company is happy, and given the refund is compensation for the delay, which in particular as part of a return journey is your time, not the companies, are you obliged to use the refund (half or full) for future company travel. Alot of company travel portals wont allow partial payment.
In my view, unless a company travel policy specifically states something about any related issue and as long as you follow their guidelines, for example you may only be allowed to spend £25 / night on a meal, then as long as you dont claim more than the allowance and you arent forced to use a company card, using a personal card with any perks is fine.
Train refunds are intended to compensate the individual, so I believe that most companies allow the individual to keep them in full. You should always check, though; a quick email could save considerable embarrassment.
Amex cashbacks are more grey but also due to the individual unless the company specifies otherwise – as are hotel points and air miles. The Platinum dining credit is pretty clear, though: a large fee has been paid to gain access to it, and it has real value to the individual. I accidentally triggered mine last year settling a company bar bill, which meant I didn’t gain any benefit when I separately ate in a qualifying restaurant with my wife. If I’d given the company the benefit of my £150, I would have been out of pocket – so, of course, I didn’t.
In all these cases, you are in potential trouble if you incur higher costs for the company so that you can access the benefits. Staying in a Marriott to gain points when a perfectly acceptable, cheaper alternative hotel is just around the corner could land you in trouble.
Air miles is an interesting one. Many company policies prohibit it (I assume so bias towards more expensive airlines doesn’t happen), but in this day in age it becomes a pain in the backside to do the simple things – manage booking, check in online, mobile boarding pass etc – if you can’t use all your pre-stored info held behind your membership number. And surely an individual with status benefits shouldn’t miss out on them just because of the policy to not receive miles?
I look at it broadly in the following manner. 1) is there a specific company policy yes or no? If no – 2) as long as the company is not disadvantaged vs the behaviour of another person in my shoes/role, all good.
So anything which would cost the company money in terms of more expensive travel / accommodation/ food driven by personal reward is a no. Also anything that costs the company my working time is a no.
But if the company isn’t disadvantaged by my choices then, all good. If I use an Amex and my colleague uses a standard non-reward credit card, what does it matter to them? I don’t see my work travel as a privilege, in fact with young kids at home, it’s a burden, that most of my colleagues don’t have to endure.
I have a reasonable degree of flex in determining what work travel I actually do. The small perks I.e. airmiles, hotel points that I can use for family holidays makes the travel a bit easier to swallow, which in turn makes me happier about the trip and which in turn leads to a better result for the company. So I see it as a win-win.
Staying in a Marriott to gain points when a perfectly acceptable, cheaper alternative hotel is just around the corner could land you in trouble.
If the company hr is stupid enough (or generous) to allow to stay at higher cost hotel, why is that a problem? How is that fraud? The approved must be doing research to find a cheaper option.
Staying in a Marriott to gain points when a perfectly acceptable, cheaper alternative hotel is just around the corner could land you in trouble.
Why would it be trouble if the company hr fails to review the options available and approved the expensive option? Unless you are lying by stating no cheaper option is available.
As with all these things, it depends what your employer is like. Some people tend to see employment as akin to serfdom. If you think the balance between you and your employer is fair (factoring in hours you work outside of your contracted hours etc) then I wouldn’t worry about it. It’s the same as asking ‘can you nip out of work for an hour to go the gym?’ which was totally acceptable in my banking days (as was a £300 hotel allowance and ‘all business class’ travel policy) but of course there was a trade off in lifestyle elsewhere.
If the company hr is stupid enough (or generous) to allow to stay at higher cost hotel, why is that a problem? How is that fraud? The approved must be doing research to find a cheaper option.
In what bizarre world do you stay in the cheapest possible hotel? I’ve never met anyone who stayed in an Ibis Budget for work. I don’t actually want to employ anyone who wants to stay in an Ibis Budget when they go to a conference.
The company is paying to have you safe, well rested enough and conveniently located enough to do your job well and so has a reasonable expectation that you will try and achieve this outcome. That means you’re actually obliged not to take the cheapest option (which is staying in the roach motel with the crackheads, or even a bench in the park) as they won’t achieve that outcome. It also means not taking (for points accumulation purposes) a deeply unsuitable hotel – one that is a huge distance away or is some sort of wild party pit. So long as you do this, the hotel that will achieve the desired outcome to the best standard for the lowest cost, or achieve it within the permitted budget, is so subjective that you can surely do what you like without any objection that withstands scrutiny unless there are specific terms in place dictating otherwise?
The company is paying to have you safe, well rested enough and conveniently located enough to do your job well and so has a reasonable expectation that you will try and achieve this outcome. That means you’re actually obliged not to take the cheapest option (which is staying in the roach motel with the crackheads, or even a bench in the park) as they won’t achieve that outcome. It also means not taking (for points accumulation purposes) a deeply unsuitable hotel – one that is a huge distance away or is some sort of wild party pit. So long as you do this, the hotel that will achieve the desired outcome to the best standard for the lowest cost, or achieve it within the permitted budget, is so subjective that you can surely do what you like without any objection that withstands scrutiny unless there are specific terms in place dictating otherwise?
Amusingly my last few stays for work breached policy regardless. We’re supposed to use a dedicated travel agent, and not book anything over the nightly cap (£180/night outside of UK). When the cheapest* via the travel agent is £200+/night, I either break the rules re travel agent or break the rules re cost. Decided to go for an entirely reasonable £150/night Indigo a 7 minute walk from the work venue, which just happened to also give me a free upgrade through status and a few points (Intercontinental was a 2 minute walk, but figured the £350/night was pushing it).
*There was one just within the price bracket, but with a homepage outwardly promoting their hotel as a bondage destination, I thought I’d give it a miss.
If the company hr is stupid enough (or generous) to allow to stay at higher cost hotel, why is that a problem? How is that fraud? The approved must be doing research to find a cheaper option.
In what bizarre world do you stay in the cheapest possible hotel? I’ve never met anyone who stayed in an Ibis Budget for work. I don’t actually want to employ anyone who wants to stay in an Ibis Budget when they go to a conference.
The real world is more subtle than that. Maybe the hotel is available for a lower cost through hotels.com than marriott.com; if so, is it really ethical to choose the higher price so that points can be earned? Or maybe the Marriott is normally priced about the same as the comparable hotel across the road, but this time the Marriott is £200 more; if so, is it ethical to pay the higher price to earn points.
There’s an expectation, usually unwritten, that employees will spend their employer’s money wisely. I’ve often chosen to travel in standard class rail, for example, where I know from experience that the train won’t be overcrowded and the price differential for first class is large. Business ethics aren’t about what you can get away with without a disciplinary; what matters is having the professionalism and character to exercise wisdom and discretion appropriate to the circumstances in hand, and to properly consider the balance of interests between yourself and your employer. I always like to ask myself, ‘Would I incur this cost if I were paying the bill myself?’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
