Summary: The complainant says incorrect information provided by Transport for London led him to buy a car which is non ULEZ compliant. We will not investigate this complaint. We are satisfied the actions taken by Transport for London are a suitable remedy to the complaint. The demand for compensation is a legal matter which can only be resolved by a court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, says the Transport for London (TfL) website provided flawed information. He says this led him to buy a car which is not compliant with driving in the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
2. He wants £20,200 compensation.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (7), as amended)
4. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A (6) and 34B (8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X including:
• his complaint form
• his correspondence with TfL; and
• TfL responses to his complaint
6. Mr X has the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Before buying a new car, Mr X entered the registration number into the vehicle checker on the TfL website. This stated the car he was interested in buying was ULEZ compliant. Mr X says this information led to his decision to buy the car.
8. Roughly a month later, Mr X received a PCN for driving the car in the ULEZ.
9. When he challenged the PCN, TfL told him the car was not ULEZ compliant. He entered the registration number into the vehicle checker again and this time it stated the car was not ULEZ compliant.
10. Mr X challenged the PCN, complaining the information on the vehicle checker has changed.
11. TfL rejected the challenge, so Mr X decided to appeal to London Tribunals. TfL then advised the Tribunal it would not contest the appeal and cancelled the PCN.
12. Mr X continued to complain to TfL about the false information produced by the vehicle checker on its website.
13. In its final response to Mr X’s complaint, TfL confirmed that, as Mr X was already aware, it had cancelled the PCN. It also explained the vehicle checker on its website is not a ‘live’ database. It performs monthly updates. Therefore, it is possible for vehicles that show as ULEZ compliant to change to non-compliant. This can happen for several reasons including:
• when someone transfers a registration from a compliant vehicle to a non-compliant vehicle; or
• where there has been a change to a vehicle’s taxation class. For example, a car can be registered as a disabled vehicle and be exempt from the charge. If it is sold and is no longer a disabled vehicle, its taxation class may change and it will no longer be exempt from the charge.
14. In recognition that Mr X used the vehicle checker to help him decide whether to buy the car, TfL confirmed it will honour the original result of the check. Mr X’s car will remain listed as non-compliant with the ULEZ on the checker. However, he will not have to pay the ULEZ charge, and he will not receive further PCNs for driving it in the ULEZ.

Assessment

15. TfL has explained how its vehicle checker works. It has also confirmed it will honour the original result of Mr X’s check and he does not need to pay the ULEZ charge, even though his car is non-compliant. I consider this to be a satisfactory remedy to the complaint.
16. Although TfL acknowledges the information on its website led to him buying a non-compliant car, he wants compensation for the following known costs:
• travelling to buy the car
• pre-purchase inspection
• repairs to the car before buying it
• loss of value; and
• legal advice
17. Mr X also wants £10,000 for loss of sleep/distress/anxiety and £5,000 for inconvenience.
18. Mr X is claiming that TfL has been negligent, and he should receive compensation. If he believes he has suffered as a direct result of negligence by TfL, he could put in a claim against it. If TfL’s insurers deny liability, then he could continue the matter in the courts. Negligence is a legal matter which can only be determined by a court, not by us.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I will not investigate this complaint because:
• I consider TfL’s confirmation that Mr X does not have to pay the ULEZ charge, even though his car is non-compliant, to be a suitable remedy to the complaint.
• We cannot decide whether TfL is liable for the costs and compensation Mr X is claiming. This is a matter that can only be determined by the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman