- May 23, 2002
- 16,928
- 8
- 81
OK, I have a strange situation I need some feedback on. I started a new job a month or so ago and it involes travel to local places where we have equipment to do repairs. THe company provides me with a vehicle to use but I have to pay for it. The paying for it is to reimburse them because I will use the vehicle for personal use as well.
Here's an exerpt from the form I'm supposed to sign:
DOes that just sound wrong to anyone else? I'm being forced to pay $250/mo for a car that isn't suitable for me to use it for personal use because of the options that it doesn't have on it. I have my own car and an SUV and really don't need a 3rd car. And since it doesn't have a trailer hitch, roof rack, etc, I can't even use it to go on the weekends to take bikes or go on out trips to the lake because it doesn't hold enough stuff inside.
I emailed the person in charge of the car thing with my concerns and that I won't use it for personal use and was told: "The policy is that if you have a car you pay the $250 personal use. There is no option to not paying it."
Anyone ever have something like this come up?
If the car had all the options on it that I needed I'd be fine paying for it since it's basically paying for the entire lease on my own. They do pay for gas and maintenance but it's under warranty anyway. It just sounds like something fishy that shouldn't be able to be forced upon me.
Argh.
Updates from questions below:
They pay for the gas but I'm "supposed" to pay for the gas on the weekends and for going on vacation. But I sure onw't do it for weekends and probably not for anything unless they yell at me. It has a gas card where I have to put in the mileage every time I fill up. Not sure how or if they track it but on any given day I could travel 20 miles for work or 200 miles for work....
I'm not allowed to make any modifications to it like adding a trailer hitch or anything either.
I will probably sell my car since I won't need it for that but we were going to sell the SUV too and get a mini-van but I can't afford 2 car payments a month when now we have none...
Part 2:
The vehicle is a 2006 Grand Caravan that already had 50,000+ miles on it when I got it.
They pay for everything on the car (gas, oil changes, repairs, insurance, etc) but I'm supposed to pay for gas when I use it on weekends. And yes, $250/mo is a good deal for that but since it doesn't have the hitch, rack, etc, I'd only be able to use it to run local errands to the grocery store and such and $250/mo for that is just retarded. If I could use it for trips and things because it had the options I need, then I wouldn't be complaining at all.
I might have the option of just not using the car but my car is a'99 Grand Am with 110,000+ miles on it and it's getting to the point that it needs to go anyway so not sure that'd help enough.
I guess I'll have to do some more research.
Here's an exerpt from the form I'm supposed to sign:
I hereby authorized COMPANY to without $_________ bi-weekly from my salary effective: xx/xx/xx (the date of assignment of a company vehicle). The purpose of this deduction is to reimburse COMPANY for non-business use of the company vehicle assigned to the undersigned.
I understand that from time to time at the request of the Company, the company vehicle may need to be made available for business by other employees to the extent required.
DOes that just sound wrong to anyone else? I'm being forced to pay $250/mo for a car that isn't suitable for me to use it for personal use because of the options that it doesn't have on it. I have my own car and an SUV and really don't need a 3rd car. And since it doesn't have a trailer hitch, roof rack, etc, I can't even use it to go on the weekends to take bikes or go on out trips to the lake because it doesn't hold enough stuff inside.
I emailed the person in charge of the car thing with my concerns and that I won't use it for personal use and was told: "The policy is that if you have a car you pay the $250 personal use. There is no option to not paying it."
Anyone ever have something like this come up?
If the car had all the options on it that I needed I'd be fine paying for it since it's basically paying for the entire lease on my own. They do pay for gas and maintenance but it's under warranty anyway. It just sounds like something fishy that shouldn't be able to be forced upon me.
Argh.
Updates from questions below:
They pay for the gas but I'm "supposed" to pay for the gas on the weekends and for going on vacation. But I sure onw't do it for weekends and probably not for anything unless they yell at me. It has a gas card where I have to put in the mileage every time I fill up. Not sure how or if they track it but on any given day I could travel 20 miles for work or 200 miles for work....
I'm not allowed to make any modifications to it like adding a trailer hitch or anything either.
I will probably sell my car since I won't need it for that but we were going to sell the SUV too and get a mini-van but I can't afford 2 car payments a month when now we have none...
Part 2:
The vehicle is a 2006 Grand Caravan that already had 50,000+ miles on it when I got it.
They pay for everything on the car (gas, oil changes, repairs, insurance, etc) but I'm supposed to pay for gas when I use it on weekends. And yes, $250/mo is a good deal for that but since it doesn't have the hitch, rack, etc, I'd only be able to use it to run local errands to the grocery store and such and $250/mo for that is just retarded. If I could use it for trips and things because it had the options I need, then I wouldn't be complaining at all.
I might have the option of just not using the car but my car is a'99 Grand Am with 110,000+ miles on it and it's getting to the point that it needs to go anyway so not sure that'd help enough.
I guess I'll have to do some more research.