Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the ultra-low emission zone. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about London’s ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ). He believes the system is undemocratic and a farce and disadvantages the poorest people in and around London.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The ULEZ dates back to 2019; it was brought in by the Mayor of London, who leads the Greater London Authority (GLA). It requires any motorist driving a vehicle which does not require with the relevant emissions standards to pay a charge for driving in the area covered by the scheme.
7. Mr X disagrees with the ULEZ scheme and believes it is built on deceit. But we cannot investigate any complaint about its introduction; this is because it has been more than 12 months since the scheme was introduced and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to consider the matter further. We also cannot look at the expansion of the scheme in 2021 for the same reasons.
8. The GLA recently further expanded the ULEZ to cover all London boroughs; the expansion came into effect from 29 August 2023 and it is this decision which seems to have prompted Mr X’s complaint.
9. The decision to expand the ULEZ concerns an administrative function of the GLA but we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating the process leading to the decision. This is because the decision has already been the subject of a Judicial Review at the High Court, which was dismissed. We have no powers to overturn the court’s decision and cannot say the scheme itself, or the recent expansion of the scheme, should be reversed.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman