The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Transport for London asked the complainant to provide evidence to show that his vehicle was compliant with the Ultra Low Emission Zone scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
The complaint
Mr X complains that the Authority made him pay for a certificate of conformity to show that his vehicle complied with the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
For a diesel vehicle to be ULEZ compliant it must meet the Euro 6 standards. Since September 2016 it has been mandatory for larger diesel vans to meet the Euro 6 Standards. Transport for London rely on information provided by the DVLA to update its compliance database, which it does monthly.
Mr X purchased a large diesel van which was manufactured prior to September 2016. At the time was shown to be compliant with the ULEZ. In 2023, Mr X drove his vehicle into London and subsequently received a ULEZ charge. He questioned this with the Authority who asked him to provide evidence that his vehicle was compliant. After Mr X provided the relevant evidence, the Authority recorded Mr X’s vehicle as being compliant and cancelled the outstanding ULEZ charges.
The Authority accept that its systems did previously show Mr X’s vehicle as being compliant and therefore exempt from ULEZ charge, but that this was based on information provided by the DVLA which likely changed after Mr X brought the van. The Authority said that it needed evidence that his van met Euro 6 standards as it was made prior to September 2016.
I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The information that the Authority received suggested Mr X’s vehicle may not be ULEZ compliant. Therefore, in line with its policy, the Authority requested Mr X provided evidence to satisfy itself what it met Euro 6 standards. The Authority were entitled to make these checks as the information provided by the DVLA showed that Mr X’s vehicle was not compliant.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by TfL.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman