The UK Government must “pause and rethink” its pay-per-mile EV tax plan, according to EVA England.
The EV driver advocacy group has written an open letter to Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which it says draws on evidence from more than 2,400 EV drivers submitted to the Government’s consultation on the policy, to which ministers’ response was published earlier this week.
The eVED policy is due to come into force from April 2028, and will see a tax of 3p-per-mile applied to full EVs, and 1.5p-per-mile to plug-in hybrids. The Government says the policy is “designed to ensure EV and PHEV drivers make a fair contribution to the public finances as fuel duty revenues decline”.
Ensure you always get AM insight. Make us a preferred source of news on Google.
Although the Government has now announced some mitigations, such as removing the need for additional mileage checks for vehicles less than three years old, EVA England says these do not go far enough.
The letter, signed by Vicky Edmonds, chief executive officer at EVA England, states: “In its current form, eVED does not work for drivers – those who are ultimately being asked to pay this new tax. It is being introduced at the wrong time: at a critical point in the switch to electric, where real challenges such as access to affordable charging for nearly 40% of households have still not been dealt with and are presenting a considerable barrier to EV demand.
“This new charge risks making EV ownership feel even more expensive, complicated and uncertain to those who are already struggling or are sceptical about making the switch.
“Drivers are not being required to buy electric cars; they must have the confidence to choose them. Pressing ahead with an untested and burdensome tax risks weakening that confidence just as the Government needs consumer demand to grow.”
EV driver feedback reveals concerns
EVA England cites EV driver feedback submitted to the consultation, including that 70% were worried about paying eVED upfront without a ‘proper refund regime’ being proposed, and 77% did not want third parties such as leasing companies paying for them because of the risk of extra costs and admin. It says more than half of the EV drivers who contributed said the proposed policy affected whether they would recommend an EV.
The letter states: “The response does not give us confidence that these fundamental concerns have been heard. Removing additional mileage checks for vehicles under three years old is welcome, but it does not resolve the central problems: drivers could still be required to pay based on a guess, be left out of pocket when circumstances change, and navigate a system whose refund and reconciliation arrangements remain unclear.
“Some elements of the design of the scheme may have been adjusted, but the policy remains too complex for drivers, who will ultimately pay for and bear the burden of this scheme. It is unfair to those with the least financial flexibility and is damagingly timed.
“Government should pause and re-think the scheme, delaying it until the real challenges to uptake have been tackled, and so that it is simple, proportionate and demonstrably workable for drivers before it proceeds.”