^{By Paul Hollick, chair, Association of Fleet Professionals}

The government’s consultation on the planned switch to electronic Vehicle Excise Duty (eVED) closed recently and, in response, the AFP has recommended a delay until 2030 to coincide with the UK ban on internal combustion engined car sales.
 
We believe 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.
 
Instead, the government should examine 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 sectors.
 
There are also a wide range of, what appear to us, largely unnecessary complexities in the current proposals which would likely generate huge amounts of administration work. They place a burden on drivers, fleet teams and leasing companies which appear disproportionate.
 
Instead, we favour a retrospective taxation system or a tax on electricity delivered through charge points rather than the proposed scheme based on predictive mileages.
 
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. The current proposals seem needlessly convoluted. Easier, better solutions are achievable.