Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Ultra Low Emission Zone because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr y complained that the Authority has refused to refund charges he paid to enter the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) on a day-by-day basis when he misunderstood information about the ULEZ extension and wrongly believed his workplace to be within the ULEZ.
2. Mr Y says he has paid £275 that he did not need to and is seeking a refund, more detailed information for road users and a safety net on the payment site to prevent payment being taken where the car has not entered the ULEZ.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y says that information about the ULEZ was not sufficiently clear, and he therefore believed that he needed to pay the ULEZ charge while driving to work. He says he has therefore spent £275 which he was not required to and is seeking a refund, which the Authority has refused.
6. The onus is on the driver to consider whether their destination is within the ULEZ or not and then make payment where they do enter the ULEZ. Signs are placed at all entrances to the ULEZ to tell drivers that they are entering the zone and a charge will apply. A map showing the exact lines of the ULEZ and other zones is also available on the Authority’s website, which Mr Y could have used to consider whether or not he needed to pay. He also could have contacted the Authority through a variety of methods explained on its website, including telephone and an online form for questions to query whether he needed to pay. While Mr Y may have misunderstood the information, and therefore mistakenly made the payment, there is not enough evidence of fault in the information available from the Authority to justify our investigation.
7. Further information about refunds is also available on the Authority's website, which explains refunds can only be made for dates in the future, and not those in the past. This is also written into the Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006 at point 10(4), which confirms that refunds will only be considered for dates in the future which have already been paid for.
8. As Mr Y paid for dates which were past once he requested a refund, there is no requirement for the Authority to now refund him. Consequently, as the terms of the Order have not been contravened by the Authority, we would not find fault for its decision not to refund the charges paid where Mr Y does not meet the criteria for it to do this. As there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman