A delay to 2030 to coincide with the UK ban on internal combustion engined car sales is recommended by the Association of Fleet Professionals (AFP) in its response to the government consultation on electronic Vehicle Excise Duty (eVED).
The industry body says the planned 2028 introduction would impact heavily on adoption of electric cars and, in its current form, create a wide range of difficulties for fleet managers.
These include clarifying who is responsible for estimating mileage, complex calculations caused by the same vehicle being used by multiple drivers, defining the split between company and private mileage, possible benefit-in-kind taxation implications, difficulties around verifying mileage, how vehicle leasing companies are expected to recharge eVED, and the disproportionate impact on rural drivers.
Paul Hollick, chair at the AFP, said: “We strongly believe the government should look at ways of delaying and simplifying this proposal while reducing the burden on fleet operators.
“The electric car market is still stabilising and fleets remain negatively affected by residual value issues, Zero Emissions Mandate volumes and charging difficulties. Introducing eVED in 2028 is likely to slow adoption and increase costs. We believe moving its implementation to 2030 better aligns with fleet cycles and avoids destabilising both the new and used markets.
“There are also a wide range of what appear to us largely unnecessary complexities in the current proposals likely to generate huge amounts of administration work. They place a burden on drivers, fleet teams and leasing companies which seems disproportionate.”
The AFP favours a retrospective taxation system or a tax on electricity delivered through charge points rather than the proposed scheme based on predictive mileages.
Paul said: “We very much recognise that electrification is leading to a taxation shortfall for the Treasury that needs to be recovered somehow and also the government would prefer to introduce a system based on use, rather than the flat rate of current BIK.
“However, the proposals seem needlessly convoluted and this is very much the theme of our consultation response. Easier, better solutions appear to be available.”
The AFP response was created by the organisation’s new government affairs and policy lead Dale Eynon.
He said: “We consulted widely with members on this subject and there was a definite feeling the government’s proposals require rethinking at a fundamental level. Fleet operators want to see a simpler system less likely to impact on electric car adoption.”
These are the key points included by the AFP in its consultation response:
1. We recommend postponing implementation until 2030. Introducing eVED in April 2028 is likely to increase the cost of new and used EVs, raising operational expenses for UK industries. Although fleets have led the transition to low-carbon transport, the electric vehicle (EV) market is not yet fully mature. Early implementation risks slowing adoption and adding unnecessary cost and complexity.
2. The proposal places significant administrative and financial pressure on fleet operators, most of whom lease their vehicles. While leasing companies would initially pay eVED, their recharge mechanisms are expected to increase costs and workloads for operators.
3. Because fleet vehicles are used for both business and private mileage, accurate separation of these categories is essential. This creates substantial administrative challenges, particularly where private use recovery is required. It is also unclear whether reimbursing private use eVED would create a benefit-in-kind (BiK) liability for drivers.
4. Vehicles may have multiple drivers within a single tax year, requiring repeated calculations and submissions for the same asset. This adds considerable complexity for fleet administration teams.
5. We believe eVED should be applied retrospectively. Estimating mileage at the start of the year is likely to result in inaccuracies, leading to additional rebate and correction cycles for drivers, fleets, and HM Treasury.
6. Annual mileage checks introduce further cost and uncertainty. Key responsibilities, processes, and consequences for late or missed checks remain undefined. As with BiK, drivers are likely to rely on fleet teams for support, increasing workloads for already stretched departments.
7. Guidance must also cover pool cars, employee car ownership schemes and salary sacrifice schemes, all of which involve business mileage and will be affected by eVED.
8. Further clarity is needed on implications for AMAP and AER. Both may require review as eVED will increase driver costs. Fleets operating large grey fleet populations face additional complexity, and AER may require dual rates where the employer covers a proportion of electric business miles. Without clear guidance, errors in claims and submissions are likely.
9. The current approach risks creating regional inequality, effectively imposing a “rural tax”. Drivers in rural areas – who depend on longer journeys and lack viable public transport alternatives – may face disproportionately higher annual costs.
