Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s failure to apply an exemption to the ultra-low emission zone for his historic vehicle. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he has received 11 penalty charge notices (PCNs) from Transport for London (TfL) for contraventions of the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ). He believes his vehicle is exempt from charges for the ULEZ as it is over 40 years old.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. TfL’s website states:

“Two categories of historic vehicles are exempt from the ULEZ:

1. All vehicles built before 1 January 1973
2. Vehicles over 40 years old that have been successfully registered with the DVLA for a historic vehicle tax class”
1. Mr X’s vehicle falls into neither category and is therefore not exempt from the ULEZ charge. However Mr X has driven in the ULEZ on at least 11 separate occasions without paying the charge. TfL has therefore issued him PCNs. This is not the result of any fault by the authority but of Mr X’s actions.
2. Mr X’s complaint stems from his belief that he should qualify for an exemption as his vehicle is more than 40 years old. But vehicle tax classes are governed by legislation and due to the way the legislation is written, Mr X’s vehicle does not currently qualify. Again, there is no evidence of fault by TfL on this point.
3. Mr X has made representations against the PCNs to TfL but TfL has refused to cancel them. If Mr X believes the PCNs were incorrectly issued he may appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman