Fleets need rapid clarification on how to apply the ‘split-level’ Advisory Electric Rates (AERs) introduced by HMRC in September, the Association of Fleet Professionals (AFP) has warned.

The change provides an AER of 8 pence per mile (ppm) for domestic charging and 14 ppm for highway charging, compared to a single AER before – but Paul Hollick, chair at the AFP, said the implementation has left electric company car operators in limbo.

“Alongside many others in the fleet sector, we were initially very welcoming of the change to a split-level rate, something for which we had been long campaigning in recognition of the widely different costs of private and commercial charging.

“However, the implementation has been confusing at best. AERs exist to provide businesses with a useful simplification when it comes to employees reclaiming fuel costs but the new system is almost unusable as it stands.”

HMRC’s guidance for split-level AER is that for journeys where a company car is charged at both public and residential locations, fleets can apportion the mileage based on how much charging happens at each place.

But Hollick said such advice was open to “wide interpretation” and warned that few fleets “are confidently proceeding”.

And in the absence of detailed instructions, most fleets are playing it safe by using the 8ppm rate, he reported.

“Only in instances where a driver exclusively uses highway charging can the 14ppm rate safely be used. Choosing the lower rate is the conservative option but means drivers who use a lot of commercial charging but some domestic continue to be left out of pocket, which is highly unfair. It’s especially difficult for fleet managers to explain to employees aware of the higher AER why they won’t be able to pay them the 14ppm rate.”

He added: “Almost no-one wants to go forward risking they’ll adopt the new AER regime incorrectly and face considerable tax back payments and even fines at some point in the future.”

The AFP has called for urgent clarification about the methodology and evidencing, especially where it needs to be coded into existing systems.

“We very much believe this is an area where the authorities should be encouraging more drivers and businesses to adopt electric company cars by enabling fair, easy and accurate reimbursement of fuel costs, and this confusion is a definite disincentive.”

Lorna McAtear, AFP deputy chair and head of fleet at National Grid, has warned that the new measures are expensive to accommodate from a process point of view, with few fleets able to afford to rewrite their software to apportion rates.

“An idea suggested when the new rates were first announced is probably the best and easiest solution, in our view. If a driver has a home charger, they sign a declaration stating that fact and are treated as an 8ppm claimant. If they don’t have a home charger, they sign a similar declaration to that end and claim everything at 14ppm. This is simple to administer and fair in the broadest sense.”

McAtear added that such a method also enables fleets to easily add additional amounts to their ppm rate, if they so choose.

“Both the AERs are arguably too low, especially the higher level when drivers are using highway rapid chargers, and employers could boost the amount they pay easily because the process is so straightforward.”

The AFP, along with other fleet sector organisations, is collecting evidence to show HMRC how further action was required to make split-level AERs practical.

Hollick said: “We have a good relationship with the tax authorities and they listen to our feedback but their approach is very evidential. They’ll want to see proof the situation exists as we describe it before further action is taken and then will need to spend time arriving at a solution that works for them and for fleets.

“Our view is that rapid clarity is needed by fleets but the reality is that arriving at a positive outcome could take some time, which is frustrating.”