Transport for London

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refusal to refund charges for using the Ultra Low Emission Zone. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

Mr X complained that after he provided evidence that his vehicle was exempt from charges, Transport for London (TfL) refused to give him a refund on the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) charges he had previously paid.

Mr X said this caused him financial hardship.

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 Mr X and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Mr X said he had paid ULEZ charges when the scheme started in 2021, because his vehicle was not exempt. Mr X said he identified an error with his vehicle registration documents and subsequently provided this evidence to TfL. According to the complaint reply, TfL agreed his vehicle was exempt, but refused to refund the charges Mr X had paid up until that point.

There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation here. TfL’s website makes it clear the onus is on the person liable for the charge to provide evidence of an exemption. Furthermore, its website says that it does not provide refunds. The evidence shows it also considered Mr X’s complaint about this matter.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman