Uproar over end of bargain deals for car industry staff
ECOS requires owners to sell a car back after six months or 6000 miles
The government's plan to end what it has called 'contrived car ownership schemes' has rattled the UK's automotive industry, which forecasts devastating consequences for itself and its workers if this becomes law.
The Employee Car Ownership Scheme (ECOS), which the government intends to end from 6 April 2026, differs from traditional salary sacrifice schemes in that the car is owned by the employee, not the employer.
Operated mainly by car makers and their dealers, ECOS enables an employee to buy a brand new car at a hugely discounted price. Monthly repayment bills are very low, with little or no interest charged.
Under the terms of the arrangement, the employee is required to sell the car back, typically after six months or 6000 miles. It's then replaced by another.
Because the car is owned by the employee and so not deemed a company asset, the employee is not required to pay benefit-in-kind (BIK) tax or national insurance contributions.
As such, the government believes this arrangement is neither legitimate nor fair, despite ECOS users being subject to heavy limitations.
In her Autumn Budget, chancellor Rachel Reeves outlined measures to 'level the playing field' because 'this arrangement means those benefiting don't pay company car tax which other employees pay'.
Speaking to Autocar, manufacturers said they had been given few details on the proposed changes and were still considering the government's plans.
A spokesperson for Stellantis said the group was 'speaking directly to the UK government on the impacts and to understand further details and timings'.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said the chancellor's announcement had come as a 'complete surprise' after decades of the industry operating ECOS unchallenged.
The SMMT questioned Treasury estimates that taxing ECOS cars as employee benefits would raise £275 million in the 2026-27 tax year and a further £590m over the following three years, because it believes this income would come at the expense of VAT and VED (road tax) on new cars no longer being sold.
Urging the government to reconsider its plans, SMMT CEO Mike Hawes said: 'These schemes are an integral part of the remuneration packages that attract people into the industry and allow employees affordable access to the products they make. They are an important part of the new car market and provide a key source of nearly new vehicles to the used market.
'Removing these schemes would challenge manufacturers' business models, restrict their ability to retain and recruit staff and constrain efforts to decarbonise road transport.
'These [ECOS cars] are new models, reflecting the latest technologies and, as such, are increasingly electric, so to cut off this new and used vehicle supply at exactly the time the industry must drive up EV adoption would be a perverse step.
'Not only would this undermine industry and government net-zero ambitions, it would also be counterproductive to economic growth, actually decreasing government revenues from lost VAT and VED, and hurt working people and their families financially.
'We would urge government to think again about this proposal and support the industry and its workforce at this critical time.'
The SMMT claims that each year, ECOS generates around 150,000 cars for the 'nearly new' market and are a valuable mix of popular vehicles and those, such as EVs, that customers would be wary of buying new.
However, used car valuation experts have disputed the magnitude of the impact that ending ECOS would have on used market supply.
A spokesperson for Cap HPI said: 'It won't have an impact on nearly new volumes. The numbers involved are tiny compared to daily rental. The [ECOS] vehicles are often on very strict mileage and there are strict rules on how long they can be kept.'
Meanwhile, Ed Steele, MD of leading automotive recruitment specialist Steele-Dixon, has predicted that employee recruitment won't be so badly affected by the banning of ECOS.
'Banning the schemes will hamper recruitment, but then if everyone is suffering, I suspect the impact will not be so great,' he said. 'At the moment, the prospect is a worry but not yet a problem, and I'm sure the accountants and lawyers will come up with a solution.
'If they don't, a ban might be a good thing, since 99% of the people I deal with haven't a clue what it costs to pay for your own car. They should know what it's like for those people who do.'
The prospect of a new car every six months on terms significantly better than anyone outside the car industry can enjoy sounds great, doesn't it? Not according to one manufacturer employee in receipt of the benefit.
The employee, who asked not to be identified, has a 1.0-litre hatchback on his firm's ECOS that costs him just £85 per month. He pays no benefit-in-kind tax or national insurance contributions on it and it's replaced every six months.
However, he says there are strict limits as to which model he can order and with which options, and even then, his order can be overruled by the factory and a different specification from the one he requested supplied. He must pay an excess mileage charge if he does more than 6000 miles in the car and any damage it suffers must be repaired by a manufacturer-approved garage whose prices, he says, tend to be higher than elsewhere.
If he puts the car through a car wash, any swirl marks must be polished out at a cost of £80, and a chipped windscreen must be replaced, not repaired.
'The scheme is great in the sense that the car is cheap, and unless I damage the car, I don't have to budget for new tyres or servicing,' the employee said.
'The downsides are that it's quite inflexible and the higher refurbishment and repair costs put many employees with families off the scheme, because of the damage their kids might do to the car's interior.
]]>
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Drive
34 minutes ago
- The Drive
Chrysler Is About To Become An 'Experiment'
The latest car news, reviews, and features. Chrysler's current status? 'Ripe for a new chapter,' according to Ralph Grilles, design chief at Stellantis. Gilles gave the viewpoint to Automotive News during an interview Friday at the automaker's centennial celebration. With 100 years under Chrysler's belt Gille's said 'it's time for us to pivot' and 'we're going to experiment with the brand.' Currently, Chrysler offers one single model in the showroom: the Chrysler Pacifica minivan. You might say the automaker has nowhere to go but up. Gilles, an executive at the automaker, acknowledged the current state of affairs by stating the brand is going to stand for 'a brand-new conquest customer.' Conquest customers are those that are stolen from other competing brands. Chrysler Portal Concept FCA US LLC Chrysler was set to be an all-electric brand by 2028. The future seems to be in a state of change. Development on an electric crossover, that was supposedly not based on the Airflow concept yet the concept looked nearly production ready and intent, was halted in January. It's unclear if, or when, that will be unpaused. The electric mid-size crossover to be based on the new STLA Large platform, which underpins the Jeep Wagoneer S electric SUV, was to launch in 2025. Chrysler CEO Chris Feuell told The Drive in November the Chrysler Pacifica minivan will receive a refresh in 2026. Meaning, now, the next product from Chrysler will quite possibly be a second refresh of its current minivan a year from now. The refresh will bring design elements from the Chrysler Halcyon concept, which debuted in 2024, to the automaker's … minivan. The concept was an exotic-looking swoopy four-door couple with coach doors. The refresh seems to be still be green lit and coming. Feuell said the Pacifica refresh would be followed a year later in 2027 by an electric Pacifica. It's unclear at this point if the electric Pacifica is still on track and in the cards for 2027. At the time, the executive wouldn't specify whether the plug-in hybrid Pacifica, currently on sale, or a range-extended Pacifica akin to the Ram Charger EREV pickup truck, would exist. It's possible with Ram's most recent lineup changes–the Hemi V8 returned, the Ramcharger launch was moved up and the electric Ram Rev has been delayed to who knows when–the electric Pacifica won't arrive in 2027 as originally planned. The Drive reached out to Chrysler for comment regarding the timeline of the electric Pacifica and will update this story if or when the automaker responds. Chrysler's sole remaining product today is about one thing: function. Gilles said while the future is about aerodynamics, it also has to be about function. The automaker needs to get people to fall in love with low cars. The reason? They are more efficient. 'We're trying to get people to like that, to understand that, to fall in love again, with lowrider,' the design exec said. Understanding the future of Chrysler might be understanding its past and executive's tastes. At the end of 2023 the last Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C rolled off the assembly line. Earlier in 2023 an electric Chrysler 300 successor had reportedly already been shown to dealers. The EV was said to be based on the STLA Large electric platform, which underpins not only the Jeep Wagoneer S, but also the Dodge Charger Daytona. The one vehicle with a special place in Gille's heart? 'Without question, the 2006 300C SRT8. Just a beautiful blend of muscle and elegance,' the exec said. But Chrysler's calling card, according to Gilles, has always been about value for money. 'It is the value for money, the prestige for money, the presence for money. That's what I want to be about going forward.' And while that value proposition is great, it's unclear beyond a refreshed Pacifica and maybe an electric Pacifica, what exactly Chrysler has on offer to bake that value for money into. Maybe that's part of the experiment? Got tips? Send 'em to tips@
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What salary sacrifice changes could mean for your pension
The government has insisted recent reports indicating that it is considering changes to salary sacrifice pension schemes are "purely speculative". It comes off the back of research published by HMRC in May that suggested the government was exploring reducing the tax and national insurance advantages by changing pension contribution schemes for workers. While the research was commissioned by the Conservative government in 2023, the timing of its publication raised eyebrows because of it's proximity to Rachel Reeves's spending review on 11 June. The spending review is when Reeves will lay out all government departments' budgets for the coming years. It could also be a strong indication as to whether the government will need to announce any increase to taxes later this year in the autumn statement. Experts have told Yahoo News why the prospect of targeting salary sacrifice schemes would be so appealing for the government - and who would most likely miss out. A salary sacrifice scheme is a formal agreement between an employee and employer in which the employee agrees to reduce their gross salary in exchange for a non-cash benefit - like a bicycle through the Cycle to Work scheme - provided by the employer. In turn, as the employee pays for this through their salary, they not only pay less income tax, but their employer pays lower national insurance (NI) on the person's remaining take home-pay. As national insurance is one of the main revenue streams for the government, this means that when an employee enrols in a scheme, the Treasury misses out on the extra tax. When you use salary sacrifice for your pension, you agree to take a lower salary, and your employer pays the 'sacrificed' amount directly into your pension. Like with any other salary sacrifice, because your official salary is lower, both you and your employer pay less in NI, and you pay less income tax on your earnings. Salary sacrifice schemes are very popular, with 70% of UK pension schemes using them as the default method for contributions. If the salary sacrifice scheme was limited or cut for pensions, the government could remove or limit these tax and NI savings. For example, you and your employer might have to pay NI on the amount you sacrifice, or there could be a cap on how much salary can be sacrificed before the benefits are lost. "Salary sacrifice along with income tax relief makes it very attractive to save into a pension," Stuart Price, Partner and Actuary at Quantum Advisory told Yahoo News. "For a lower rate tax payer £1 invested only costs them 72p, and for a high rate tax payer £1 invested only costs them 58p. "If the provision of salary sacrifice is removed and hence national insurance relief is no longer provided these numbers increase to 80p for a lower rate tax payer and 60p for a higher rate tax payer," he added. By removing or scaling back the tax and National Insurance (NI) exemptions that benefit employees and employers benefit from through salary sacrifice, the government could boost its revenue. 'Salary sacrifice along with the annual allowance often appear top of the list of options when the government needs to save money," Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown told Yahoo News. The move would therefore be an attractive prospect for HMRC because it would generate "significant income". "I would expect that they would be in favour of the removal of salary sacrifice on pensions," John Mullaly, a group risk and healthcare consultant from actuary Cartwright Employment Awards, told Yahoo News. This may be even more significant as the government is just days away from its spending review, the process the government uses to set all departments' budgets for future years. 'The government may be tempted to turn its eye to salary sacrifice... particularly given the amount it costs in lost national insurance revenue," Martin Willis, a partner at independent consultancy Barnett Waddingham explained to Yahoo News. While the government might benefit, employees earning the least would be the hardest hit. "High earners may be insulated from any potential shift; the real impact would be on lower and moderate earners - particularly those using salary sacrifice to top up pension contributions," Waddingham said. The move could also be an additional blow for businesses after the government's hike on national insurance rates for employers in the last Budget. "Removing it now could disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers and employers who've only just faced a rise in national insurance costs," Willis added. Morrissey echoes this. "At a time when employers are battling higher wage and NI bills, salary sacrifice might be seen as one way of reducing these costs – making changes will add an extra burden to struggling employers.' While both employees and employers benefit from salary sacrifice arrangements, Mullaly said employers "do not pocket all of the savings." "Quite often they use it to fund additional benefits to be used to attract and retain employees," he added. Additionally, if salary sacrifices adversely affect pension pots, savers could be discouraged from putting away enough into their pension — which is unwelcome news when the figure for a comfortable retirement continues to rise. According to the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA), to live a comfortable retirement in the UK, the estimated annual retirement income needed in 2025 is around £43,100 a year. "There does seem to be a trend of focusing on increasing tax revenue at the expense of all other considerations, rather than focusing on the underlying social reasons for having things like a pension," Price said. "The result of all of this is less money will be saved by employees towards their pension. Not a great thing when as a nation we are nowhere near saving enough for our retirement." Added to this, the change in uptake could affect how and where pension funds invest their money. "Many of the largest pension funds invest in our high streets, shopping centres and other real estate," Mullaly explained. "With many high streets already under threat, any reduction in investment is only going to make the situation in this area worse." While salary sacrifice reduction may be a highly attractive prospect for the government, it is clear that it would be far from popular. The Society of Pension Professionals has already warned the government against salary sacrifice changes, writing in a statement that it would affect earners "very selectively". Added to this, there would be some serious logistical hurdles to tackle to implement it. Firstly, Willis said implementing these reforms after the new financial year has started "would likely be far from straightforward". "Currently, salary sacrifice reward structures are set by employers, so implementing changes could be very messy, especially when it comes to capturing salary decisions for new hires or changes mid-year," he told Yahoo News. "Today salary sacrifice is largely used to support improved pension saving, and is limited since the system was already tightened in 2017." A government spokesperson said: 'These claims are totally speculative. HMRC regularly commissions independent research on all aspects of the tax system, and this research was commissioned under the previous government. 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible which is why, at last autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise to not raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Winter fuel U-turn should have come a long time ago, Reeves told
The decision to reinstate the winter fuel payment should have been made 'a long time ago', Scotland's Social Justice Secretary has said. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said on Monday that nine million pensioners will be in receipt of the payment this year after a cut was announced in the first weeks of the Labour Government last summer. The initial decision was met with heavy backlash and forced the Scottish Government to delay the implementation of its own devolved benefit. John Swinney's administration later announced a similar payment for pensioners which would be tapered and see those on the highest incomes receiving £100, compared to £305.10 for those on the least. Monday's announcement will result in cash being sent to the devolved administration at Holyrood, and Scottish Labour has urged the Government to increase its payments. But Scotland's Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said the decision was 'a betrayal' of pensioners. 'I welcome any extension of eligibility by the UK Government, but this is a U-turn the Chancellor should have made a long time ago,' she said. 'But there is still no detail about how the Chancellor intends to go about that. Unfortunately, it still sounds as if many pensioners will miss out.' Ms Somerville added that the Scottish Government had not been consulted on the decision and urged UK ministers to 'ensure the Scottish Government is fully appraised of the proposed changes as soon as possible'. 'The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week to urge the UK Government to share its plans with us as quickly as possible, so that we can understand any implications for our own programmes and, crucially, our budget,' she said. Scottish Labour MSP Paul O'Kane said: 'The winter fuel payment is a devolved payment in Scotland and Scottish Labour has long been clear that we want to see it reinstated for the majority of pensioners up here – but despite their loud spin, the SNP voted against our attempts to do so. 'The SNP must not go ahead with plans that would rob poorer pensioners in order to fund payments for millionaires. 'The SNP must re-examine their own proposals in light of this game-changing announcement, ensure payments reach those most in need, and give a cast-iron guarantee that no struggling Scottish pensioners will be left out of pocket under their plans.' The Scottish Government's plans were initially to provide a universal payment to pensioners, but the proposals were scuppered by the Chancellor's announcement of the cut last summer, forcing ministers to create a different system for this winter.