Summary: Mr X complained about Transport for London’s (TfL) failure to recognise his car as Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) compliant and resulting charges. He said this caused significant frustration and financial loss. We found TfL to be at fault. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, TfL has agreed to apologise, ensure all charges are refunded and pay him £300. It will also take action to ensure a similar situation does not reoccur.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about being incorrectly issued with several penalty notices for driving in the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), despite his car being ULEZ compliant.
2. He says this caused significant frustration. He also incurred financial loss because Transport for London (TfL) withdrew charges from his bank account leaving him with insufficient funds to pay bills and direct debits.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and TfL as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and TfL had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Ultra Low Emission Zone

7. The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) operates across all London boroughs. If a vehicle does not meet ULEZ emissions standards and is not exempt, a daily charge of £12.50 is applied to drive such a vehicle. It applies to cars, motorcycles, vans and specialist vehicles (up to and including 3.5 tonnes) and minibuses (up to and including 5 tonnes).

What happened

8. Mr X drives a ULEZ compliant vehicle, with a private number plate. In April 2024, he was charged £195 for several journeys in the ULEZ zone. When he told TfL about this mistake, he was asked to submit his vehicles V5 document. In response, Mr X provided proof, from TfL’s own system, that his vehicle was ULEZ compliant, and he wanted the matter dealt with as a formal complaint.
9. Mr X was then asked to provide documentation about his number plate.
10. Shortly afterwards, Mr X was refunded £162.
11. In October 2024, Mr X received further charges. TfL accepted it made another error and said he would be refunded £225. Instead, he was sent a cheque for £170.
12. Mr X contacted TfL to explain the refund was incorrect. TfL sant another cheque for £100.
13. In April 2025, TfL issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint. It said:

• Mr X had been incorrectly charged 41 times;
• TfL failed to properly register his vehicle as compliant on its system;
• steps had been taken to address the problem with the relevant team; and
• it would pay Mr X £200 to acknowledge his distress and frustration, as well as refunding further charges and apologising for its mistake.

14. Mr X felt this was inadequate because it failed to compensate him for the disruption to his bank account and resulting charges, and so brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
15. In response the Ombudsman’s enquiries, TfL:

• reported Mr X had been incorrectly charged £225 again; and
• agreed to pay him a further £100 in acknowledgment of this further mistake.

Back to top

Analysis

16. In its response to Mr X’s complaint, TfL already accepted it incorrectly charged Mr X on 41 occasions. It explained the incorrect charges were due to an inputting error that failed to recognise his vehicle as being ULEZ compliant. This was fault that caused distress, inconvenience, and unnecessary financial loss to Mr X.
17. There was further fault with how TfL responded to Mr X’s contacts and complaint. The narrative above clearly demonstrates TfL failed to issue correct refunds on at least three occasions. This caused Mr X further frustration.
18. In response to his complaint, TfL’s agreement to refund Mr X the outstanding incorrect charges and pay him £200 was in line with the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies.
19. However, it is disappointing the matter was not resolved and further charges were levied after Mr X brought his complaint to us. I consider the further payment of £100 is an appropriate outcome to acknowledge the avoidable frustration experienced by Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. TfL has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision.
1. Apologise in writing to Mr X.
2. Pay Mr X £300 and any outstanding charges. It should also contact Mr X to establish his preferred method of payment.
3. By training or other means, ensure relevant staff are reminded of the steps required to properly register non-standard number plates as being ULEZ compliant.
21. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I find fault causing injustice. TfL has agreed to remedy the personal injustice to Mr X and improve its service. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman