The UK electric vehicle charging sector has responded with concern following confirmation that HM Revenue & Customs will appeal a tribunal ruling that could have reduced VAT on public charging. The decision means public charge points will continue to attract the standard 20% VAT rate while domestic electricity remains taxed at 5%.
The case, brought by Charge My Street, had raised expectations that electricity supplied at public charge points could be treated as domestic use under certain conditions. The First-Tier Tribunal ruling suggested this would qualify for the lower VAT rate, offering potential cost relief for drivers who rely on public infrastructure.
Industry figures say the appeal prolongs a disparity that has long been seen as a barrier to wider electric vehicle adoption. Drivers without access to home charging, often those in urban areas or rental accommodation, face higher costs compared to those able to charge at home.
John Lewis, CEO of char.gy, said: “This is a deeply disappointing decision, and one that sends entirely the wrong signal to the millions of people who rely on public charging. While home charger users pay 5% VAT, drivers without a driveway – disproportionately those in cities, renters, and lower-income households – continue to be penalised at 20%.
“The government talks about accelerating EV adoption, yet is actively choosing to maintain a tax structure that makes public charging more expensive than it needs to be and undermines the transition. char.gy stands ready to pass on any VAT saving to our customers the moment the government does the right thing. The question is: what is the government waiting for?”
The VAT difference has been a persistent issue in the UK’s transition to electric mobility. While home charging is generally cheaper, both in energy costs and taxation, public charging remains essential for a large proportion of drivers, particularly as the government seeks to phase out new petrol and diesel vehicle sales.
Tanya Sinclair, CEO of Electric Vehicles UK, said the appeal reinforces an uneven system. “Drivers without off-street parking already pay more to charge simply because of where they live. HMRC appealing this ruling is the government choosing to defend that inequality.
“If you’re serious about EV adoption, you don’t fight the ruling that would fix your most regressive charging cost. You let it stand. Their actions don’t match the narrative.”
The cost gap between home and public charging has been cited in policy discussions around accessibility and fairness in the transition to low-emission transport. As EV uptake increases, ensuring equitable access to charging infrastructure is seen as central to meeting decarbonisation targets.
Ginny Buckley, CEO of Electrifying.com, pointed to the wider implications for consumers. “For a government that talks about standing up for ‘working people’, the decision to appeal this ruling flies in the face of that. Ministers are doubling down on a system that penalises millions of drivers who rely on public charging.
“Those drivers can pay up to ten times more to charge an electric car than someone with a driveway – and in some cases, that makes EVs more expensive to run than petrol.
“This hits those without driveways the hardest, making it more expensive for them to switch and if the government is serious about making EVs affordable, it cannot allow a two-tier system where access to cheaper, cleaner driving depends on what type of property you have.”
The tribunal ruling had been viewed by some in the sector as a step towards aligning tax policy with wider climate objectives. The government has set targets to increase EV adoption and expand public charging infrastructure, with a focus on supporting drivers through the transition.
Campaign groups have also raised concerns about the long-term impact of maintaining the current VAT structure. Warren Philips, Campaign Lead at FairCharge, said: “FairCharge has led on this issue, but consumers, industry and MPs alike have always known it was wrong. Charging people more because they depend on public infrastructure was wrong in principle, and the tribunal confirmed it. People unable to charge at home pay four times the VAT rate of their neighbours for identical electricity, a failing that persisted long after the legal basis was challenged. By appealing, the government is telling 1.4 million current EV drivers, and more than 30 million who will have to switch, that it is willing to go to court to keep public charging costs high. It should accept the ruling and work with consumers and industry to put this right.”
The appeal means the tribunal’s decision will not take effect until the legal process concludes. In the meantime, the existing VAT rates remain in place, continuing the cost difference between public and domestic charging.
As the UK expands its charging network and encourages more drivers to switch to electric vehicles, the outcome of the appeal is expected to have implications for both consumer costs and the pace of adoption. The issue also sits within a broader policy context, where taxation, infrastructure investment and consumer incentives are all seen as factors influencing the transition to low-carbon transport.
