Menu

Fuel prices on the rise: should I be commuting to the office?

With the recent upsurge in petrol prices, we all recognise driving to work can be an expensive exercise. Inevitably, for many employees, the question isn’t just “Can I afford to fill up my tank?” but “Do I really need to be in the office every day?”

Parallel to this, an organisation needs to balance its operational needs, build a constructive and prosperous team culture and ensure fairness across the workforce. So where does the law stand on office attendance, remote working, and travel expenses?
Commuting
For years, commuting costs were accepted as part and parcel of working life. But with fuel prices fluctuating at record levels, that assumption is being challenged – particularly by employees who have successfully worked remotely over the last few years. From an employee’s perspective, increased travel costs feel external and unavoidable. From an employer’s perspective, they are not something the business controls. This tension is now playing out in workplaces across the UK.
“Do I legally have to be in the office?”
Long story short, it depends on your Contract of Employment.
Most employment contracts specify a normal place of work. If the contract states that the role is office‑based, an employer is generally entitled to require attendance, irrespective of commuting costs increasing. However, things may be less clear where:
  • Your contract allows remote or hybrid working
  • The employee has worked remotely for a long period
  • Home working has become the “norm” in practice, even if not formally agreed.
In those cases, employees may argue that remote working has become an implied term – something employers should approach carefully. But in any event, an employer is unlikely to allow one to not attend the office solely by reason of fuel prices increasing. This is due to the fact hybrid working, even if a contractual entitlement, is usually on a discretionary basis.
As such, rising fuel prices alone do not usually give employees a legal right to refuse office attendance. That said, employers should be mindful of:
  • Employee relations and morale
  • Potential indirect discrimination risks, particularly where commuting impacts disabled employees or those with caring responsibilities
  • The risk of constructive dismissal claims if obnoxious changes are imposed unreasonably or without consultation.
What About Travel Expenses?
This is where confusion often arises. In most cases:
  • Ordinary commuting costs are not reimbursable
  • Travel between home and the normal place of work remains the employee’s responsibility.
However, if employees are required to:
  • Travel to different sites
  • Attend mandatory meetings away from their usual base
  • Change their normal place of work.

Then travel expense policies may apply, and employers should ensure these are clear, consistent, and up to date.
A Practical Take for Employers
Rather than viewing this as a legal standoff, many businesses are using rising travel costs as an opportunity to reassess how work gets done.
Good practice includes:
  • Reviewing employment contracts and hybrid policies
  • Consulting with staff before enforcing changes
  • Being flexible where possible without undermining business needs
  • Communicating clearly, and empathetically, about expectations.

If you need guidance on office attendance requirements, remote working arrangements, or travel expenses, our employment law team is here to help. Contact Lawson West Solicitors today for clear, practical advice tailored to your business or individual circumstances.

Update: Extension of ACAS Early Conciliation to 12 Weeks

What is the ACAS Early Conciliation Period in UK Employment Law?

The ACAS Early Conciliation period has been extended from six weeks to twelve weeks, a change introduced in response to mounting pressure on ACAS and the Employment Tribunal system.

ACAS has been inundated with new cases in recent months, limiting the ability of parties particularly claimants to engage meaningfully in conciliation before considering the costly step of issuing a tribunal claim. The extended period is therefore intended to provide parties with a more realistic opportunity to resolve disputes without litigation.

Employment Tribunal Backlogs

The tribunal system is facing record backlogs, with 45,000 live single claims recorded as of March 2025. Additionally, delays in the appointment of ACAS conciliators often mean that parties lose valuable negotiation time under the previous six-week limit. By doubling the conciliation window, the Government aims to relieve pressure on both ACAS and the tribunal system, while enabling more effective and constructive negotiations. The effectiveness of the extension will be reviewed in October 2026.

Affect on Limitation Periods

The change also affects limitation periods due to the existing “stop-the-clock” rule, which pauses the time limit for bringing a tribunal claim during EC. Under the extended 12-week period, claimants may now have significantly longer overall to commence proceedings. Should the proposed Employment Rights Bill extend tribunal time limits to six months in 2026, the combined effect could allow claimants significantly longer before needing to file a claim.

Overall, the extension aims to balance system efficiency with fairness for both parties, encouraging meaningful employment dispute resolution while easing existing operational pressures.

At Lawson West Solicitors we have a team of experienced employment lawyers, committed to providing advice on all aspects of employment law.  If anything in this article affects you or if you need any help and support then please do not hesitate to get in touch. We are here to help and support you on 0116 212 1000. Contact Us

Government U-Turns on ‘Day-One’ Unfair Dismissal in Employment Rights Shake-Up

‘Day-One’ Rights for Unfair Dismissal Moves to ‘6-Months’

The Government has revised its plan to introduce ‘Day-One’ unfair dismissal rights, settling instead on a six-month qualifying period after constructive talks with unions and business groups. The new approach is intended to strengthen worker protection while remaining practical for employers and aligning with typical probation periods.

This agreement clears the way for the Employment Rights Bill to move forward, keeping key reforms on track for April 2026 including day-one sick pay, day-one paternity leave, and the launch of the Fair Work Agency.

Business organisations welcomed the compromise as clear and workable, while unions emphasised the importance of getting the reforms onto the statute book without delay. Some details such as rules on guaranteed hours and protections for seasonal workers will be addressed through further consultation and secondary legislation.

Overall, the six-month rule aims to deliver stronger, more consistent employment protections without creating significant hiring risks for employers.

At Lawson West Solicitors we have a team of experienced employment lawyers, committed to providing advice on all aspects of employment law.  If anything in this article affects you or if you need any help and support then please do not hesitate to get in touch. We are here to help and support you on 0116 212 1000. Contact Us

Autumn Budget 2025: What EMPLOYEES Need to Know