Published: 27 February 2026 | Category: Insights & Policy
A tribunal decision published on 26 February 2026 has put a long-running fairness debate back in the spotlight: why does public EV charging often carry 20% VAT, while home charging is typically charged at 5%? The case, Charge My Street Limited v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, focuses on whether electricity supplied through public chargepoints can qualify for the reduced VAT rate in certain circumstances.
It might sound like a niche tax dispute, but it reaches into everyday driver reality. If you can charge on a driveway, the VAT position is usually kinder. If you rely on on-street or public charging, you can end up paying more for the same energy, simply because of where you live and how you charge.
What the case was really about
Charge My Street is described as a community-focused operator of EV chargepoints. In simple terms, it argued that its supply of electricity to drivers through public chargepoints should be treated in a way that allows the reduced VAT rate to apply under the rules. HMRC took the opposite view and maintained that the standard rate applied.
This was not a debate about whether VAT exists. It was about which VAT rate is lawful in this context, and how the legislation should be interpreted for modern EV charging infrastructure that may be kerbside, in car parks, or across dispersed sites.
The legal hinge: “premises”, “rate”, and the 1,000 kWh threshold
The arguments turned on how parts of UK VAT law apply to electricity, including a note commonly summarised as a threshold concept: the reduced rate can apply where electricity supplied to a person at any premises, by the same supplier at that premises, is not supplied at a rate exceeding 1,000 kWh per month. That is where language written for traditional supply arrangements meets the practical complexity of public charging.
Two words did much of the heavy lifting:
- “Premises” and whether it must mean a building, or whether it can sensibly cover locations where chargepoints are installed and used.
- “Rate” and whether it only makes sense in the context of a continuous domestic-style electricity contract, or whether it can be assessed in a way that reflects how charging is actually delivered and billed.
The decision has been widely discussed because it indicates a more practical reading of these terms, aligned to real-world charging. It also highlights a very operational question for the sector: in multi-party journeys, who is the “person” being supplied, particularly where a driver pays via an app or platform rather than directly to the chargepoint operator?
Why this matters to drivers
VAT is not a minor line item. It influences the pence-per-kWh price a driver sees and can materially affect the total cost of public charging over time. The bigger point, though, is fairness. The more the UK relies on public charging to support EV adoption in towns, cities, and communities without driveways, the more that cost gap becomes difficult to justify in the eyes of drivers.
Even a well-designed network can feel “hostile” if the price is consistently higher for those with the fewest alternatives. When policy, pricing, and charging experience work together, public charging becomes normal. When they clash, it becomes a barrier.
What could happen next
Tribunal decisions can be influential, but they are not always the final chapter. The practical impact depends on how the ruling is treated going forward, including how suppliers structure supply chains, how VAT is applied in practice, and how HMRC responds. What is clear is the direction of the debate: EV charging is forcing older definitions to be tested against a newer way of consuming energy.
ONEEV perspective: making charging feel predictable
While this ruling is about VAT, it connects to something drivers care about far more than legal definitions: a charging experience that feels consistent, transparent, and easy to complete. Public charging works best when drivers can find a charger confidently, understand what they are paying, and complete payment securely without friction.
Helpful next reads on ONEEV: Explore the ONEEV app, EV charging near you, and How ONEEV is represented in AI search.
Sources and further reading
Key reactions to the ruling
This is a hugely important outcome – not just for Charge My Street, but for communities across the UK who rely on affordable, local EV charging. Our mission has always been to make neighbourhood charging accessible to everyone, and today’s ruling supports that mission. Lower VAT on charging improves fairness and helps accelerate the shift to cleaner transport for all. We rely on investment from ordinary EV drivers to extend our chargepoint network, and this result helps the commercial case for our current share offer.
Daniel Heery Director, Charge My Street
EV adoption must be both practical and affordable at a community level if the UK is to meet its Net Zero commitments. The Tribunal’s decision recognises the essential role of local, public charge points in enabling that transition. We are pleased that the ruling provides clarity for operators like us and reassurance for the people and places we serve.
Dr Will Maden Director, Charge My Street
The First-tier Tribunal found that, under existing UK law, drivers should be charged the 5% reduced rate of VAT when charging their electric vehicles at any public charging facility. Specifically, the Tribunal interpreted the de-minimis provision in Note 5(g), Group 1, Schedule 7A, VAT Act 1994 as applying the 5% reduced rate of VAT to supplies of electricity at public EV charging locations where the amount of electricity supplied is below 1,000 kilowatt hours per month per customer at each location.
Daniel Barlow Tax Partner, Deloitte
