Summary: Mr X complained about Transport for London’s advice about congestion charge exemption for a vehicle which he bought. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about being advised that a car would be exempt from the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) charge, but following his purchase he had his exemption application refused. He says he paid £12,000 for the car and expected that he would not be required to pay the additional charge after choosing a vehicle which he was led to believe was compliant.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the authority, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he wanted to purchase a car which complied with the exemptions from the congestion charge because he wished to avoid future expense. He put details about a car which he was interested in into the authority’s website which advised him that ‘from what we know about your vehicle today’ the car was exempt. The car dealer’s advertisement also claimed the car was ULEZ compliant.
5. Mr X bought the car but when he applied for an exemption discount, his application was rejected. The authority told him that although his car was a hybrid electric the discount only applied to pure electric vehicles. The car had been advised as exempt on the DVLA details submitted because it was registered in the tax class ‘disabled’ by the DVLA.
6. Transport for London has an exemption for vehicles used by disabled people that are exempt from vehicle tax and have a 'disabled' taxation class. This applied to the status of the car when Mr X and the car dealer input the DVLA details prior to purchase, but when he registered the car to himself, the DVLA changed the tax status back to ‘alternative fuel vehicle’ and the exemption did not apply to the car in his ownership.
7. The authority makes it clear on its website that the advice applies to the vehicle on the day of making the enquiry and that it is subject to change. It is unfortunate that the tax exemption was removed by the DVLA after he made enquiries but it is clear that the vehicle was no longer in the disabled class and could no longer comply.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman