Just Over a Third of Technicians Can Touch an EV. That Still Changes the Hire Period Argument.

Just over a third of UK technicians are currently qualified to work on electric vehicles, and the IMI's own year-on-year figures say that gap is still widening, not closing. If your claimant is driving an EV and the repair is taking longer than an insurer thinks it should, that is not a vague excuse. It is a measurable, dated, citable capacity constraint, and it belongs in your file.

Why is the wait longer for EV repairs specifically?

Because the qualified workforce is still thin, and growing more slowly than demand. The Institute of the Motor Industry's own TechSafe data puts the figure at 74,734 EV-qualified technicians, 35% of the UK workforce, as of the end of Q4 2025, the most recent quarter the IMI has published. New EV qualifications did rise 6% on the previous quarter, but were still 17% lower than the same quarter a year earlier, so the underlying trend is slowing even where the headline number ticks up. The IMI is projecting demand could exceed supply by more than 43,000 technicians by 2035.

That skill is not spread evenly. It is concentrated in the franchise dealer network, where manufacturer academies fund training as standard. Independent bodyshops, which is where a large share of credit hire repairs actually happen, have historically had fewer training opportunities and less capital to invest ahead of demand. The IMI's own head of research has warned this creates a "postcode lottery" for EV owners trying to get a repair booked.

Repair capacity was already stretched before you add EVs into it

This is not a new problem for handlers. We wrote about justifying a long hire period on general repair capacity back in August (When the Bodyshop Cannot Take the Car), and that argument still stands: bodyshops are dealing with rising labour and parts costs, higher energy and overhead costs, and growing vehicle complexity across the board, according to repair-sector reporting. What the EV figures add is a second, separate, more specific constraint that sits on top of the general one. A repairer being busy is one thing. A repairer not being qualified to touch the vehicle at all, and having to find or subcontract to someone who is, is a different and stronger argument.

What this means for your hire period evidence

If you are running an EV credit hire file and an insurer is pushing back on hire period length, do not rely on "the bodyshop was busy" alone. Ask, and document, whether the chosen repairer holds EV accreditation in-house or is subcontracting the work out. If it is being subcontracted, get the date the vehicle was referred and the date a qualified slot became available. That gap is your evidence.

The IMI's 35% figure, and the fact that the year-on-year qualification rate is still falling even as the raw headcount rises, is background evidence you can put in front of an insurer or, if it comes to it, a court, to show that "reasonable" hire periods for EV claims are not the same as for a like-for-like petrol or diesel repair. This is not a subjective claim about how busy one garage happens to be. It is a national, dated, IMI-published figure.

What should handlers do differently on EV files

Three things, from today. First, ask the repair-capacity question explicitly and in writing at the point of referral, not after the insurer challenges the hire period. Second, keep a note of the IMI figures on file as standing background evidence, and update it when the IMI publishes its next quarterly forecast. Third, do not assume "it's an EV" is self-explanatory to an insurer's engineer. Show the numbers. When reviewing the insurer's period challenge in the TPI Analyzer, include that dated repair-capacity evidence.

FAQ

Related reading

• When the Bodyshop Cannot Take the Car
• TPI Analyzer

Craig Budsworth writes on credit hire practice for CreditHire Assist.