VAT Matters UK – Charge My Street – A powerful ruling on electric vehicle charging

In this article, David Reaney and Emma Robinson explore the First Tier Tribunal judgement in Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Charge My Street Ltd (UKFTT00318(TC))) which was published on 26 February 2026.

Background to the case

Charge My Street Ltd provides accessible, community-based electric vehicle charging across the UK with a focus on areas where people wouldn’t normally be able to access home charging. The charging stations can mainly be found in service stations, community centres, public car parks and hotels. Charge My Street Ltd has been treating its supplies as standard rated for UK VAT purposes. This aligns with the HMRC view on the VAT liability of EV charging.

This case has an interesting history as Charge My Street Ltd had previously submitted a claim for overpaid VAT (on the basis that its supplies should have been subject to 5% VAT and not 20% VAT) and HMRC settled this claim and refunded the business the overpaid VAT.

Following this settlement, Charge My Street Ltd requested a ruling from HMRC to confirm its supplies were being correctly treated as reduced rated, but this ruling was unsuccessful with HMRC ruling the supplies should be charged at the standard rate of UK VAT. HMRC then assessed to claw back the refund previously made.

General position on VAT on electricity

Typically, electricity is either subject to the standard rate of UK VAT (20%) i.e., when used for commercial purposes, or it can be subject to the reduced rate of UK VAT (5%) if it is used for certain qualifying purposes such as domestic use, certain charitable use or the amounts used fall within de minimis limits (detailed below) in which case the use is deemed to be domestic.

HMRC’s view is that electricity used to charge electric vehicles in public places i.e., places other than people’s home, is subject to the standard rate of VAT. With the increase in electric vehicle adoption a range of bodies lobbied for the application of the reduced rate to EV charging, however, HMRC reiterated its view (that the standard rates applies) in Revenue & Customs Brief 7/2021.  This is the view that was successfully challenged in this case.

Overview of arguments made in the case

Premises

As noted above, HMRC has always viewed that supplies of electricity through public charging stations must be subject to the standard rate of UK VAT and cannot be deemed domestic supplies which would be subject to the reduced rate. This is largely because of the way that HMRC interprets the reduced rate VAT law (Schedule 7A VAT Act, Group 1, Note 5). This legislation refers to the supply of electricity to a person at any premises where the electricity provided by the same supplier was not provided at a rate exceeding 1,000kwh a month (this is the de minimis amount). The use of the word “any” before premises becomes important in the ruling.

In summary, HMRC argued that the law requires the electricity to be supplied to a building (or premises) that the recipient of the electricity has an interest in as owner or occupier. As the public charging points are in public places, the owner of the electric vehicles will have no interest in them.

The taxpayer argued that HMRC’s view on what “premises” meant required additional words and conditions which are not currently in the law and that premises should take the meaning in plain English and can include any defined outside space, with no need for there to be a building which the person charging their vehicle has an interest in. The First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) accepted this argument.

Usage – Rate

HMRC also argued that the rate of electricity consumed was more than the de minimis of 1,000 kwh per month when converted to a daily use. This de minimis applies where the electricity is supplied to the same customer by the same supplier at the same premises.  HMRC argued that the rate should be calculated based on the period of each ad-hoc supply to each customer but again, this appears to go beyond the plain meaning of the law.

The amount of electricity consumed during an average charge is 50kwh but when 1,000 kwh is converted to the daily use, this amounts to 33 kwh so HMRC argued that a single charge by a customer exceeds the ad-hoc daily use and therefore the reduced rate cannot apply. Again, the FTT rejected HMRC’s argument and held the rate was 1,000 kwh per month, as outlined in the legislation.

Third Party Apps

A large portion of the judgment related to supplies which involved third party apps. This area is complex and fact dependent and should be considered in detail by providers using third party apps or by the app-owning companies.

It is expected that the issues raised in this part of the judgment will be explored in more detail should an appeal be made, and it is our current expectation that an appeal will be made by HMRC.

Conclusion

This is potentially a landmark case within the EV sector. We await HMRC’s response, initially in relation to the decision on whether to appeal or not. However, for businesses operating in this sector, we recommend you take action now, including to:

• Review existing supply chains to see if the case may be relevant for your supplies, including the nature of your supplies to customers and the involvement of third parties, including app providers;
• Review supplies made in the last 4 years to quantify the potential VAT overpaid to HMRC; and
• Consider whether it is appropriate for the business to submit a protective claim to HMRC.

David Reaney is a partner in KPMG’s Indirect Tax department in Belfast and Emma Robinson is an associate director in KPMG’s Indirect Tax department in Belfast.