Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Back in April 2014 EVIOM reported that incorrect fees had been applied to all EVs licenced in the Isle of Man. (See that post here). EV owners found themselves paying car tax at the low emissions band for Category B vehicles. At that time the situation was rectified and refunds were made.



Due to a blunder by the DoI when making the licence review in 2015 EVs were kept at a higher rate than low emission cars. EV owners found themselves paying almost three times the amount of car tax than for petrol/diesel/hybrid cars.

So if you own a fully electric car you would pay £14.00, whilst owners of a BMW i8 or Toyota Previa, for example, only pay £5.00. In fact over the last two years EV car tax has increased whilst polluting car's tax has decreased!

We are told that the DoI "will address the anomaly" in the next duty review but that they "are unable to refund any duty, but will reduce the rate in the new legislation that will be drafted"

EVIOM has suggested that the DoI should change the rate for ZERO emission cars to £0.00.

If this was done, at least for the next two years, it would address the fact that EV owners have paid extra this year and, more importantly, provide a better incentive to drive Zero emission vehicles.

Feel free to write to your MHK if you agree!



So this is Tynwald in action to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050!

It is the opinion of the author that it is time this government woke up to the fact that EVs are here on the island NOW and more and more are being used by island residents, businesses, town commissioners and even government departments. The government should be encouraging the use of EVs by prioritising ANY legislation that would help them achieve their published emissions target.

The minister recognises the fact that "Ever improving fuel efficiency standards and the introduction into the mainstream market of ultralow emission vehicles are leading us towards low emission transport systems which we need for the future." and that there is a "recent marked increase in fuel efficiency of new vehicles across Europe and the growth in numbers of electric and hydrogen powered vehicles."

But there is no government backing for EVs, and they are just paying lip-service to keep in-step with the international legislation. Making two blunders over the EV car tax in less than two years is inexcusable and shows a lack of commitment to encourage the use of low emission technologies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
Thankfully not. 0-50g/km of CO2 is £5, an electric zero emission vehicle is £14. A motorcycle over 400cc is £74 though.
The highest band for cars is £583 at over 255g/km.
https://www.gov.im/media/1346831/vehilce-licence-application-and-fees-form-vt1-effective-1st-march-2015.pdf

I'm not sure how this compares to the UK apart from zero emission vehicles being £0.
It doesn't !!!
see: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419799/V149_Budget_2015_Final_version.pdf

£14/ year isn't exactly going to cripple many Manxmen :D

have to admit to being old enough to remember when the UK Road Fund Licence (though even then government were pinching most of receipts for other purposes) was only £12:10:00 (£12.50 to younger viewers).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I know £14 isn't much, it just seems odd that a zero emission vehicle is £14 and vehicle that emits CO2 can be as low as £5. I feel it just sends out the wrong message, or it encourages people to buy ICE cars and pay fuel duty...
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
24,469 Posts
The question is, what is it?

A vehicle excise duty
A licence
A road fund tax
A registration tax
A compulsory insurance fee
A Police fee
A facilities usage charge
A road usage tax
A parking disc
A motorway toll charge
A pollution tax

Could be any of these, each has an example across the world.

If it is anything but the latter, then why should EVs be free?

If it is the latter, then of course they should be free?

Do we know what it is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
Title is clear enough (Vehicle excise Duty). But no doubt our servants have been reading Lewis Carroll (from Alice)
Words mean whatever I want them to mean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,413 Posts
I remember when it was Road Fund Licence. You know, the money that we gave the government to maintain and improve the roads.
But then they got so embarrassed because virtually none of it went on improving roads, just disappeared into the coffers.
So they called it something else, hoping we would not notice. Now occasionally they tell us that we should be grateful because they are investing "X" amount into road schemes. Which means cycle lanes, bus lanes, traffic 'calming', and speed cameras. But no actual improvement in roads......:mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,956 Posts
Which means cycle lanes, bus lanes, traffic 'calming', and speed cameras. But no actual improvement in roads......:mad:
Actually, I prefer driving on safe roads, where other drivers don't speed around dangerous blind corners, and take care at their vehicle handling. There's places where traffic segregation, traffic calming and speed cameras may be necessary; there's plenty of places where they shouldn't be necessary. Generally, around built-up areas, I don't expect to get anywhere fast unless I'm on a motorway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,413 Posts
Apologies, but from Wiki:
In 1932 Lieut. Colonel Moore-Brabazon said in a debate in the House of Commons about the Road Fund: "This vote is different from any other because the money that goes to the Ministry of Transport is motorists' money. It is not Imperial taxation. It is money that comes from the motorists, to be spent on one definite thing, namely, the roads. If the Government come to the conclusion that they are going to spend less money on the roads, they have to make a case to the motorists why they are not going to reduce the taxation upon their cars. If they are going to keep on the same taxation and to spend the money derived from the motorists upon Imperial taxation, let them say so."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,413 Posts
Actually, I prefer driving on safe roads, where other drivers don't speed around dangerous blind corners, and take care at their vehicle handling. There's places where traffic segregation, traffic calming and speed cameras may be necessary; there's plenty of places where they shouldn't be necessary. Generally, around built-up areas, I don't expect to get anywhere fast unless I'm on a motorway.
But the result from traffic calming (i.e. slowing traffic up), is more stop start and more pollution. Better to let it flow. No pollution from us, obviously(y). Safe roads? Next time you hit a pot hole and damage a tyre, or dink a rim, see a cyclist or biker suddenly swerve out to avoid a pothole....?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,377 Posts
I love it when someone rants that "bl**dy cyclists don't pay bl*8dy road tax", and then smile to myself that neither do I, and haven't since 2009 because I've carefully chosen my family sized, automatic transmission cars. (y)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
I love it when someone rants that "bl**dy cyclists don't pay bl*8dy road tax", and then smile to myself that neither do I, and haven't since 2009 because I've carefully chosen my family sized, automatic transmission cars. (y)
Lots of other exemptions too. I don't pay VED on my Landrover (indeed, I don't even have to MOT it which I agree is insane) but it rarely ventures out on public roads anyway (would you @8mpg ?). I think most disabled drivers are exempt too (but also bizarrely because Ma in Law is too disabled to drive it herself I do have to pay VED on the adapted people carrier we've got to move her around).

I don't actually rant about cyclists but it would be nice to think they were making some contribution towards all the cycle lanes they seem to be getting these days. Even more importantly, perhaps making them take out insurance would be a good idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,377 Posts
I don't actually rant about cyclists but it would be nice to think they were making some contribution towards all the cycle lanes they seem to be getting these days. Even more importantly, perhaps making them take out insurance would be a good idea.
Most will probably have a car and have paid that way. Should they not be getting a discount on their car tax if they're using the bike that day?

Secondly, most decent cyclists will have liability insurance provided by their household insurer. Idiots won't as is the way with cars too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
Most will probably have a car and have paid that way. Should they not be getting a discount on their car tax if they're using the bike that day?

Secondly, most decent cyclists will have liability insurance provided by their household insurer. Idiots won't as is the way with cars too.
Not convinced that either 'most' is justified.

Lots of cyclists are too young to drive or (unbelievably to us) choose not to do so or may even have been disqualified. They won't therefore have paid any VED. And of course VED isn't a 'pay as you go' facility - I don't get any discount for staying home all day.

Agreed, many cyclists who are householders are probably insured against third party risks but there are large numbers of people who don't have house insurance (whether they never bothered to get their house insured or just that they don't hold such a policy in their own right).

Should you be the victim of an uninsured driver, the MIB
The Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB)
will pay out on the claim. If you try to claim against an uninsured cyclist they'll laugh at you.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top