Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Ultra Low Emission Zone are there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority issued approximately 15 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to him for entering the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in a non-compliant vehicle.
2. Mr Y says he has since been able to prove his vehicle is compliant and has been able to have the PCNs cancelled by the Authority but he had to pay £150 for the emissions test, which he is now seeking a refund for.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Authority launched the ULEZ scheme in April 2019 and since then, it has provided information online to help registered owners check whether their vehicle is compliant and how to prove compliance if not.
6. There is no national requirement for vehicle emissions data to be recorded and as such the data for some vehicles is simply not available to the Authority. This means some vehicles which may be compliant are occasionally issued with PCNs incorrectly.
7. To help address this, the Authority set up its online compliance checker, which includes details of how an owner can prove their vehicle is compliant. This includes providing information from the manufacturer and emissions testing.
8. Mr Y’s complaint is that vehicle owners should not be responsible for the costs associated with the emissions testing.
9. The onus to prove compliance resting with the registered keeper of the vehicle is set out in the London Low Emission Zone Scheme Order 2006. It is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether this is lawful or fair – as such consideration would fall under the jurisdiction of the courts. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault in the Authority’s actions.
10. If Mr Y wishes to challenge this, it would be a matter for the courts to decide, as only the courts can determine liability, which we cannot. Therefore, the courts are better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the courts are better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman