Summary: Mr X complained about how Transport for London (TfL) charged him with an incorrect Ultra Low Emission Zone rate on three occasions and about how it dealt with his complaint. There was fault by TfL which caused injustice to Mr X. TfL will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how Transport for London (TfL) charged him with an incorrect Ultra Low Emission Zone rate on three occasions at £100 charge each instead of the standard £12.50 charge. Mr X also complained about how TfL dealt with his enquiries and his formal complaint about the incorrect charges.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him significant inconvenience, financial strain, stress, and that he was unable to use his vehicle for four months due to TfL’s failings.

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 an injustice, 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated matters Mr X complained about in paragraph 1. This investigation covers the period from when TfL first issued Mr X with the £100 ULEZ charge to when TfL issued its final response to his complaint (September 2023 to April 2024).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr X and Transport for London (TfL) provided about this complaint.
7. I sent Mr X and TfL a copy of my draft decision and considered all comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Low Emission Zone (LEZ) – operates to encourage the most polluting heavy diesel vehicles driving in London to become cleaner. The LEZ scheme requires the owners/drivers of the vehicles to pay a charge (between £100 to £300) for driving in Greater London.
9. 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)

Key events

10. Mr X owns a vehicle which is UK registered and is non-compliant with the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
11. In 2023, TfL charged Mr X a LEZ charge of £100 for the use of his vehicle on three occasions.
12. Between mid-October and end of November 2023, Mr X submitted several enquiries to TfL to query the three £100 LEZ charges. Mr X said TfL should have applied the standard £12.50 ULEZ charge instead.
13. In January 2024, Mr X made a formal complaint to TfL. Mr X complained TfL failed to respond to any of his enquiries about its continuous incorrect ULEZ charges for the use of his vehicle. He said due to TfL’s incorrect charges, he had been unable to freely use his vehicle for three months which caused him significant inconvenience, financial strain, and stress. Mr X asked TfL to conduct a thorough investigation of his case and provide him with a comprehensive and timely response.
14. At the end of January, TfL issued its stage 1 response and confirmed Mr X had been wrongly charged with the LEZ rate of £100. It said Mr X’s records had been corrected on its system and that his vehicle had been moved to the correct ULEZ category.
15. In February and March respectively, Mr X asked TfL to escalate his complaint to its stages 2 and 3 complaint process. Mr X said TfL did not fully address his complaints about its delays with responding to his several enquiries and his stage 2 complaint. Mr X said TfL only sent him a cheque of £87.50 refund for one of the incorrect charges, but it did not refund him with the other two incorrect charges.
16. When Mr X did not receive TfL’s responses to his stages 2 and 3 complaints, he made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
17. In April, TfL issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint. It apologised for its delays and the inconvenience caused to him. TfL explained Mr X was wrongly charged due to a technical error which read his vehicle data incorrectly and as a result he was charged the LEZ rate instead of the ULEZ rate. TfL said its system had been corrected and that going forward Mr X would be charged the correct £12.50 ULEZ rate for his vehicle. TfL said it would refund all the three incorrect charges and it would make Mr X a £100 payment to acknowledge the time he spent trying to resolve the matter.
18. In response to our enquiries, TfL provided the Ombudsman with further information. It explained that where a foreign registered vehicle is used in London and is not registered with TfL, it is unable to clarify which schemes/charges the vehicle is subject to. And as a result, TfL will consider the vehicle is subject to all schemes and the maximum charge will be applied.
19. TfL said in Mr X’s case, a system error occurred. It said while Mr X’s vehicle was UK registered, it had the format of a foreign registered vehicle. It said that was why its system misinterpreted Mr X’s vehicle to be a non-UK vehicle due to the format and then charged Mr X the LEZ rate (£100), but he should have been charged the ULEZ rate (£12.50).

Analysis

20. In its response to Mr X’s complaint, TfL already accepted it incorrectly charged Mr X the LEZ rate of £100 on three occasions instead of its standard charge of £12.50 ULEZ rate. It confirmed the incorrect charges were due to a technical error which misread Mr X’s vehicle data. This was fault and caused distress, inconvenience, and an unnecessary financial loss to Mr X.
21. I note TfL had apologised to Mr X for its error, refunded all the three incorrect LEZ charges and paid Mr X £100 to acknowledge how it dealt with his case. These are welcome. However, I consider these as partial remedies in line with our guidance on remedies.
22. This is because I find fault by TfL for its complaint handling. There was no evidence to show TfL responded to any of Mr X’s enquiries from mid-October 2023 until he made a formal complaint in January 2024. This was approximately a three-month period, and it was fault. It caused Mr X distress, frustration, confusion and avoidable time and trouble chasing TfL for clarification and resolution.
23. Also, while TfL promptly issued its stage 1 response, I find it failed to fully address Mr X’s complaint. This then resulted in Mr X escalating his complaint to stages 2 and 3 of its complaint process. TfL did not respond to Mr X’s complaints at both stages until the Ombudsman got involved. TfL issued its final response in April 2024. This was poor complaint handling. It caused Mr X avoidable time and trouble and frustration.
24. In conclusion, I find Mr X suffered avoidable uncertainty about whether he would incur further unwarranted charges pending TfL’s resolution of his complaint/case.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, TfL has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Mr X and make him an additional symbolic payment of £100 to acknowledge the injustice caused to him by TfL’s failings as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• remind relevant staff to respond to all stages of TfL’s complaint procedure in a timely manner.

26. Within three months of the final decision:

• review TfL’s systems and report back to the Ombudsman with an action plan summarizing how it will prevent recurrence of the system error which misinterpreted vehicle data in this case.

27. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I find evidence of fault by Transport for London leading to injustice. The Authority has agreed to take actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman