Summary: Mr X complains about the Ultra Low Emission Zone penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued to him by Transport for London. The Ombudsman has not found fault in the way Transport for London administered its process for issuing and cancelling the PCNs.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complains about the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) PCNs issued to him by Transport for London (TfL). He says TfL failed to check the available records confirming his vehicle was compliant with ULEZ standards and incorrectly issued the notices. He is also unhappy about the way TfL dealt with him in response to his representations to cancel the PCNs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an authority’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 spoken to Mr X, made enquiries of TfL, and read the information he and TfL have provided about the complaint.
5. I invited Mr X and TfL to comment on a draft version of this draft decision. I considered any responses before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. TfL, as a highway and traffic authority for roads within the Greater London Authority, regulates how the public use the highways and, as the charging authority, sets up road user charging schemes. Under the ULEZ scheme, TfL charges vehicles entering the charging zone unless they meet the required emissions standards.
7. The Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006, (the 2006 Order) came into force on 13 November 2006. This was amended when:

• TfL introduced the T-Charge scheme on 23 October 2017 under the Greater London (Central Zone) Low Emission Zone Charging (Variation) Order 2016.
• ULEZ replaced the T-Charge scheme on 8 April 2019 under the Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Variation and Transitional Provisions) Order 2018.

8. TfL is required, under Section 9 of the 2006 Order, 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 2006 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. In June 2020 Mr X applied to DVLA to transfer a registration number to a vehicle he had acquired and for his registration as its registered keeper. The DVLA completed the registration, updated its records on 24 June, and issued the updated vehicle logbook (VC5) to Mr X. The vehicle is compliant with ULEZ standards.
11. Mr X drove the vehicle within ULEZ on 26 June and 28 June. TfL issued him with PCNs for these journeys on 6 and 16 July.
12. On 1 August Mr X made online representations to TfL disputing the PCNs. He said his vehicle was ULEZ compliant, as confirmed by Tfl’s website when he entered the vehicle’s original registration number.
13. Mr X used a shortened version of his first name when he made the representations. TfL asked him for authority, as this did not exactly match the first name of the registered keeper. It also asked him to send a copy of the VC5 document.
14. Mr X provided this information. On 27 August TfL confirmed Mr X’s representations had been accepted and the PCNs cancelled. It said its records had been updated to confirm the vehicle was compliant.
15. Mr X was unhappy about the way TfL dealt with the issue and cancellation of the PCNs. He says:

• There was no need to ask him to send further authority
• TfL checked DVLA’s records for his name and address but not the details showing the vehicle was compliant.
• He had to make unnecessary journeys to collect the required documents from home to send on to DVLA.
• TfL said DVLA had not provided his vehicle’s up-to-date information. But DVLA told him they have no input into TfL’s system.
• When he checked TfL’s website before bringing the complaint to us on 4 September, his vehicle was still recorded as non-compliant.

TfL’s response

16. It maintains a compliance database for all UK registered vehicles. This is a static list, not a live link, but is refreshed every month with updated data from DVLA. Motorists can check their vehicle’s compliance status using the link to the database from TfL’s website.
17. It has a process which allows motorists, who believe their vehicle’s compliance status is wrongly recorded, to arrange for this to be corrected. Details of the process are on its website.
18. A vehicle’s compliance status may be wrongly recorded on its database for a time if its registration has recently been transferred from a non-compliant vehicle. This is because there is a short delay between DVLA updating its records, its monthly update to TfL, and TfL’s completion of the monthly refresh of its database.
19. TfL has a procedure in place allowing it to cancel a PCN on being provided with evidence confirming a registration has been transferred to a compliant vehicle.
20. In Mr X’s case, as at the date of his journeys within ULEZ on 26 and 28 June, his vehicle registration was recorded on its database as being allocated to a non-compliant vehicle. This was because its database had not yet been updated following DVLA’s transfer of the registration on 24 June.
21. Although TfL does not have access to live DVLA data, it has an agreement with DVLA allowing it to access up-to-date vehicle and registered keeper details in order to issue PCNs. TfL was able to access this updated information to issue PCNs to Mr X on 4 and 16 July.
22. Maintaining the database and issuing PCNs are separate procedures. There would be significant administrative difficulties in checking one against the other at the point of issuing a PCN.
23. All diesel cars first registered as new after 1 September 2015 and petrol cars registered as new after 1 January 2006 are automatically compliant with ULEZ standards. And the database is refreshed every month. This ensures a vehicle’s compliance status is correctly recorded in most cases. There are only a small number of cases, predominantly when a vehicle registration is transferred from a non-compliant to a compliant vehicle, or vice versa, when a vehicle’s status is incorrectly recorded.

Analysis – was there fault by TfL causing injustice?

24. TfL is required to keep a register of compliant and non-chargeable vehicles. It has explained why there is a delay between changes registered by DVLA being recorded on its database and the systems it has for updating its database and allowing motorists to check and correct their vehicle’s compliance status. Based on the evidence I have seen, my view is TfL has taken reasonable and proportionate steps to maintain an accurate database of compliant and non- compliant vehicles.
25. TfL has also explained why it does not have a system for confirming compliance status, after obtaining up-to-date vehicle and registered keeper details from DVLA at the point of issuing the PCN. My understanding is the administrative difficulties for TfL of introducing such a system are not warranted by the relatively few cases in which this would make a difference. And, as I consider TfL has a straightforward, easily accessible procedure which allows motorists reasonable time to make representations and provide evidence of compliance, on receipt of which TfL will cancel a wrongly issued PCN, I do not consider there was fault in TfL’s process for issuing the PCNs to Mr X.
26. Mr X used this procedure, he had a reasonable amount of time in which to provide a copy of the VC5, and both PCNs were promptly cancelled. I do not consider the issues Mr X raised in his complaint caused any material inconvenience and I do not consider there was any fault by TfL in the way it administered its process for cancelling the PCNs issued to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been no fault by TfL in the way it administered its process for issuing and cancelling the PCNs issued to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman