Charge My Street Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 26 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 318 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Charge My Street appealed HMRC’s treatment of its public electric vehicle charging supplies as standard‑rated VAT rather than reduced‑rate under Note 5(g) of Schedule 7A VATA. The tribunal held that Note 5(g) can, on its plain meaning, cover charging at identifiable public premises (such as car parks) and that the 1,000 kWh de minimis is measured by kWh supplied to the same person at the same premises over a calendar month. The tribunal found that where drivers pay via the Fuuse app the economic reality is that Charge My Street supplies the charging to the driver, but supplies collected by some third‑party apps may involve those apps acting as principals or agents; the appeal was allowed in principle in part, with quantification of qualifying supplies left unresolved.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The tribunal’s binding reasoning is that "premises" in Note 5(g) includes identifiable property or defined public areas where electricity supplied to a person can be monitored and measured; the 1,000 kWh de minimis is assessed by the kWh supplied to a person at the same premises by the same supplier in a calendar month; and where contractual terms conflict with commercial and economic reality, the tribunal will look to that reality to determine who is the supplier for VAT purposes.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal discussed principles of fiscal neutrality and conforming construction of EU law but considered those issues unnecessary to resolve given the plain‑meaning conclusion; remarks on supplier switching risks and historical EU practice were made but were not essential to the decision.