The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London refusing to exempt Mr X’s vehicle from the Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ). There is not enough evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. And we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.
The complaint
Mr X complains the authority refuses to accept that his car is exempt from the ULEZ charge even though it is not in the Euro 6 category. He wants the authority to test his car, accept it is exempt and remove it from the charging system.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the authority should test his car as he believes work has been carried out by a dealership which means it complies with the minimum of emissions required for Euro 6.
Euro 6 is the minimum standard required for his car to be exempt from the ULEZ charge. However, the information provided by Mr X does not show his car emissions meet the Euro 6 standard.
As Mr X has not provided evidence to the contrary, TfL must classify his car as non-compliant.
We may criticise a TfL decision if there is evidence of fault in the process it has used to make its decision and, but for that fault, a different decision would have been made. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way TfL considered the core issue of Mr X’s car’s compliance with ULEZ emission requirements to justify us criticising its decision or investigating. I recognise Mr X disagrees with TfL’s decision. But it is not fault for an authority to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
The outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is for TfL to test his car to prove that his car is exempt from the ULEZ charge. However, this is a matter for Mr X, rather than TfL.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way TfL decided his car is not ULEZ compliant. Nor can we achieve the outcome he is seeking.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman