Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for the Ultra Low Emission Zone because we are satisfied with the actions the Authority has taken, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority (TfL) wrongly charged him an additional £300 on top of the daily charge for entering the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), despite him having paid, because his vehicle was a foreign registered car and not on a European database as being ULEZ complaint.
2. Mr Y says he felt that TfL stole his money, as it took the £300 despite him having paid for the daily charge to drive in the ULEZ. He also said that while TfL returned his money to him, this caused him inconvenience because the money was returned by cheque in British Pounds.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
5. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y, who lives in France, says he registered his French car for the ULEZ charge online in August 2023. He then visited London in June 2024 and was charged £12.50 as expected but also a further £300. Mr Y complained to TfL in September 2024.
8. TfL then issued a cheque for £300 to Mr Y. Mr Y says he struggled to pay this cheque into his local banks in France because the amount was in British Pounds. He then approached us in June 2025.
9. In this case, TfL has returned the £300 to Mr Y. While this was not in the currency Mr Y would have preferred, it was paid back to him in the currency it was taken in. While it may have been slightly more difficult, Mr Y has, in his complaint correspondence, confirmed that he has been able to pay the cheque in.
10. As Mr Y’s alleged injustice has been the £300, we would consider it an appropriate and proportionate remedy for him to have the amount returned to him. As TfL has returned the £300, Mr Y’s injustice is now limited to the inconvenience caused to him. While this would have been frustrating, it is not a serious loss, or harm in this case. Consequently, any injustice beyond the £300, which has now been returned, is not significant enough to warrant investigation and we are satisfied with TfL’s actions to remedy to the complaint. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Authority has taken, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman