Summary: Mr D complains that Transport for London wrongly charged him for driving within the Toxicity Charge zone when it should have treated his vehicle as compliant. He also says it delayed in replying to his complaint. The Ombudsman has found no fault in Transport for London asking Mr D to pay the charge and then provide evidence to allow him to reclaim it. He has upheld Mr D’s complaint about delay responding to his complaint but considers that Transport for London has already offered Mr D an acceptable financial remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says Transport for London (TfL) wrongly charged him for the Toxicity Charge (T-Charge) in 2019 despite his vehicle being compliant. He also says TfL delayed in replying to his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about “maladministration” and “service failure”. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. He 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 an injustice, he may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1))
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr D supplied and listened the recording of his first telephone call to TfL. I have considered TfL’s response to my and the previous investigator’s questions. I have also taken into account the relevant legislation, the previous investigator’s draft decision and Mr D’s response.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

5. The T-charge scheme was a road-user charging scheme made under section 295 and schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, as amended. TfL, as a charging authority, sets up road-user charging schemes by making a scheme order. It can make changes to schemes with variation orders.
6. Under the T-Charge scheme, TfL charged vehicles entering the charging zone unless they complied with the emissions standards applicable at the time or were a non-chargeable vehicle.
7. The initial order, the Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006, came into force on 13 November 2006. TfL introduced the T-Charge scheme on 23 October 2017 under the Greater London (Central Zone) Low Emission Zone Charging (Variation) Order 2016. This amended the original charging order. The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) replaced the T-Charge scheme on 8 April 2019.
8. Section 9 of the order requires TfL to keep a register of compliant and non-chargeable vehicles. It allows TfL to ask for “all such information as [it] may reasonably require” to establish that a vehicle is compliant and “by such means as [it] may accept”.
9. Under section 10 of the order, a person who has paid a charge may apply by post for a refund. They must provide either a receipt, copy receipt, receipt number or the vehicle registration document and “such further information to Transport for London as it may reasonably require”.

What happened

10. On 25 January 2019, Mr D contacted TfL’s call centre to pay the Congestion Charge. He told the officer that the T-Charge checker on the TfL website said his vehicle was compliant so the T-Charge was not payable. But, when he entered his registration number on the Congestion Charge payment page, this said that the T-Charge was also payable.
11. Mr D explained that he had personalised number plates on his car. He thought that the problem was that the Council’s system did not recognise that the older registration plate had been transferred to a new, compliant vehicle. He checked his vehicle log book (V5C form) which indicated that the vehicle was compliant.
12. Mr D said he was happy to pay the £10 Congestion Charge, but not the £11.50 T-Charge. However, the officer explained that the payment system would not let him just pay the Congestion Charge. Instead, he would need to pay the £21.50 charge and then send in proof of compliance and apply for a refund. He reluctantly paid the £21.50 combined charge but said he would complain about this.
13. Mr D asked TfL to consider a complaint about its actions. Soon after, TfL wrote to Mr D asking for details of his vehicle so it could check compliance. It listed the evidence he needed to provide to show the vehicle was exempt from the T-Charge. TfL says it received no response so it closed the case.
14. On 7 February, Mr D sent TfL the requested evidence and a further complaint. TfL responded on 7 March. It explained that it checked vehicle compliance primarily using a “static” list from the DVLA, which it uses to update its own register of compliant vehicles.
15. When it received the vehicle compliance data for Mr D’s registration number, this was displayed on a non-compliant vehicle. Since then, it had received no evidence to the contrary. So, when Mr D tried to pay the Congestion Charge, TfL’s system showed his vehicle as non-compliant for the T-Charge standards. TfL had now received evidence from Mr D confirming the vehicle was compliant and it had updated its records.
16. TfL explained that the T-Charge was ending in April 2019, so it would not be practical or cost-effective to change its compliance checker before then. It apologised for any difficulties and refunded the T-Charge and, as a goodwill gesture, the Congestion Charge. TfL advised Mr D that he had completed its complaints procedure and the next stage was to complain to the Ombudsman.
17. Mr D wrote again to TfL on 12 March. TfL accepts it failed to reply.

My assessment

T-Charge

18. Mr D says that TfL’s system for identifying compliant vehicles was and remains inadequate, and TfL is at fault in charging motorists for compliant vehicles.
19. I do not see any evidence of fault in this matter.
20. TfL is entitled to charge vehicles entering the zone unless it is satisfied that they comply with the emissions standards applicable at the time. TfL may ask for “all such information as [it] may reasonably require” to satisfy itself that a vehicle is compliant.
21. I do not consider it unreasonable for TfL ask for a vehicle’s log book in order to have written confirmation of compliance, if other sources have not confirmed this. I note also that the legislation makes provision for reimbursement of charges on receipt of evidence such as the vehicle log book.
22. As to the register of compliant and non-chargeable vehicles, the legislation does not specify exactly how TfL must go about compiling this.
23. TfL currently has some 45 million vehicles on its database. It receives a static list from the DVLA every month to update its own register, and it may take a further two to four weeks for TfL to update its own register. This means that some data on the register will be out-of-date.
24. TfL has considered the use of a “live” lookup but says that this would require extensive development of both its and DVLA’s systems. The DVLA’s vehicle registration data only changes in a few circumstances, mainly when a vehicle registration is transferred from one vehicle to another. Moreover, all diesel cars first registered as new after 1 September 2015, and all petrol cars first registered as new after 1 January 2006 automatically comply with the ULEZ standards. So, TfL mainly requires access for old vehicle data rather than anything added to the DVLA records. It considers the present system both pragmatic and cost-effective.
25. The Ombudsman would expect TfL to take reasonable and proportionate steps to put a system in place to identify compliant vehicles with reasonable accuracy.
26. TfL has explained that, under the T-Charge scheme, it issued around 4,500 charges daily to non-compliant vehicles (i.e. to a total of around 2,500,000 non- compliant vehicles over the 17 months to March 2019). Over the same period, it only updated around 3,400 vehicle records from non-compliant to compliant. So, compared with the total number of vehicles charged, fewer than 0.15% have had their status changed from non-compliant to compliant. Since TfL introduced tighter restrictions with the ULEZ (around 4 times as many vehicles are non-compliant), it has made around 16,000 changes to the database. This is broadly similar in percentage terms to the situation with the T-Charge.
27. This indicates that TfL’s system correctly identifies the great majority of compliant vehicles. Given this, and since motorists can easily provide evidence to update the register, I consider TfL’s system “good enough”. I see no fault here.

Complaint handling

28. Mr D has complained about delay in responding to his complaint.
29. TfL has acknowledged the errors in its complaint handling and is offering Mr D £30 as a remedy for this (in addition to the £21.50 charges already refunded). I consider that to be a reasonable remedy to the injustice I have identified in relation to the complaint handling.
30. I note that Mr D initially suggested that a payment of almost £800 would be an appropriate remedy for his time and expenses. He has since indicated his willingness to accept a figure of £250. However, the only fault I have identified was TfL’s two-week delay responding to his February complaint its failure to respond to his March letter. I see no basis to ask for that level of redress and it would not be commensurate with the degree of fault or injustice set out in this statement.

Agreed action

31. I consider that TfL’s offer to pay Mr D £30 as a remedy for the failings in its complaint handling (in addition to the £21.50 charges already refunded) are sufficient remedy for the injustice to Mr D. I would ask TfL to pay Mr D this sum within one month of the decision date on this statement.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation and upheld Mr D’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman