In many companies, the topic initially seems resolved. Company cars are charged at home, there is a policy for reimbursement, and often even a technical basis such as a wallbox. At first glance, everything appears well organized—and that is exactly the point at which many processes are never questioned.
Because a reimbursement process not only needs to be theoretically correct. It also has to work in everyday life. With real users, different usage scenarios, and processes that evolve over months. This is precisely where uncertainties arise—ones that may not be noticeable at first but can later lead to real problems.
The following five scenarios illustrate typical situations from practice that occur in a similar form in many companies.
1. “Employees simply submit their charging data”
Employees charge their company car at home and submit their consumption on a monthly basis, for example via an Excel sheet or as a photo of the electricity meter. In some cases, estimated shares of household electricity are also used. Initially, this works surprisingly well. Over time, however, questions arise. Is the data actually traceable? Can the information be verified if necessary? And how can it be ensured that only business-related electricity is taken into account? The real issue is rarely a specific error. Rather, there is a lack of a reliable foundation. This means that reimbursement is generally possible—but not truly robust.
2. “The wallbox only charges the company car”
The wallbox at home is intended for the company car. Since it is not compliant with German calibration law but only has an MID meter , the reimbursement is based on this setup. In everyday life, however, it rarely stays this way. A second electric vehicle is added, often purchased privately. Both vehicles are charged at the same charging point . From that moment on, the question inevitably arises: how is private and business charging actually distinguished? What was originally designed as a clear solution gradually becomes imprecise—usually without it being immediately noticed.
3. “We handle it with fixed amounts—it’s simpler”
Many companies start with a simplified approach. Instead of recording each individual charging session, fixed amounts or average values are used. This reduces effort and is quick to implement. Especially in the beginning, this appears to be a practical solution. In practice, however, the limits of this approach quickly become apparent. For reimbursing charging electricity within a company, a traceable and concrete allocation of the actual energy consumed is essential. As soon as it is no longer clear which kilowatt-hours were actually charged for the company car, a problem arises—regardless of how simple the original model was intended to be.
4. “We check the reimbursements internally”
Accounting or fleet management reviews the submitted data and approves it. This works as long as the number of company cars remains low. However, as electric company cars become more widespread, the effort increases. More reimbursement cases mean more follow-up questions, more coordination, and more exceptions. What used to be a side task gradually develops into its own process. Recurrent questions arise:
Are the values plausible?
Is any information missing?
How do we handle exceptions?
The additional effort is not caused by individual errors, but by a lack of scalability in the process.
5. “If necessary, we can prove everything”
Many companies assume that they can provide all relevant data if required. Meter readings, invoices, or exports from the wallbox are available after all. The real challenge often only becomes apparent when such proof is actually required. At that point, the question is no longer just whether the data exists, but whether it:
can be clearly assigned to a specific vehicle
is fully documented
can be easily traced without significant effort
This is where theory and practice diverge. Having data does not automatically mean it can be presented in a structured and verifiable way. In addition, legal requirements—such as those from calibration law —must also be considered.
What these scenarios have in common
The situations differ in detail but follow a similar pattern. Each solution is logically structured. However, it does not fully take into account how usage evolves in everyday life. What matters is not only how the reimbursement is designed, but whether it works under real conditions. Key factors include:
a clean recording of charging sessions
a clear separation between private and business charging
a traceable and scalable reimbursement process
As soon as one of these aspects is not properly addressed, the uncertainties that later become visible begin to arise.
How can these challenges be solved in practice?
The scenarios described show that many approaches are reasonable in isolation, but in combination quickly reach their limits. This is precisely why more and more companies are turning to solutions that map the entire process holistically, rather than considering individual aspects separately.
At its core, it is about reliably bringing together three elements: automated, kWh-precise recording of charging sessions, clear allocation to the correct vehicle, and a reimbursement process that remains traceable without manual effort. Only when these elements work together does a process emerge that not only functions in theory but also proves itself in day-to-day operations.
Specialized solutions such as our Charge Repay Service address exactly these points. Charging sessions are recorded system-side, clearly separated, and reimbursed automatically, significantly reducing the workload for both fleet management and accounting. At the same time, this creates a data basis that is consistently documented and can be traced at any time if required.
The decisive difference does not lie in a single function, but in the interaction of all components. Only when processes are designed end-to-end can the typical uncertainties that repeatedly occur in practice be avoided.
Conclusion: What matters is real-world usability
Many companies set up their processes so that they appear correct at first glance. This is an important step, but in practice it is often not enough. Only when a solution proves itself under real conditions does it become clear whether it is sustainable in the long term. This includes increasing usage, different charging habits, and the requirement to be able to present reimbursements transparently at any time. For this reason, many issues do not arise immediately, but only after some time. Taking an honest look at one’s own solution helps to identify early on whether the existing reimbursement process is truly robust—or only works under ideal conditions.
