Transport for London (21 009 513)
Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management
Decision : Not upheld
Decision date : 28 Jun 2022
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Ms B complains Transport for London has not dealt properly with ULEZ compliance relating to her vehicle. Transport for London is not at fault.
The complaint
- The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complains that Transport for London (TfL) failed to:
- ensure that their online ULEZ Auto Checker was providing reliable information while promoting the Auto Checker as a way to determined compliance for road users.
- acknowledge & accept responsibility for the flaws to its system.
- Ms B says she has suffered distress, inconvenience, received numerous penalty charges and incurred costs that she should not have done.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
- When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
How I considered this complaint
- I spoke to Ms B about her complaint and considered documents she provided. I made enquiries of TfL and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
- Ms B and TfL had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
TfL ULEZ
- TfL operates two charging schemes, the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) and the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
- The London Low Emission Zone Scheme Order 2006, (the ‘Scheme Order’), sets out the vehicles affected and whether they meet the emissions standards.
- Petrol vehicles must meet the Euro four emissions standards and diesel vehicles must meet the Euro 6 emissions standards in order to comply with the scheme.
- TfL uses data provided by the UK Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA) supplemented with data from the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA), and from some vehicle manufacturers. The DVLA data is refreshed every four weeks. This ensures any updates to DVLA data, which may impact a vehicle’s compliance, will be reflected in the online compliance checker shortly after the DVLA information is updated.
- Euro 4 standard for petrol vehicles became mandatory for vehicle manufacturers on 1 January 2006 and the Euro 6 standard for diesel vehicles on 1 September 2015.
- Some vehicle manufacturers made vehicles to meet these standards before the mandatory dates. Prior to the launch of the ULEZ TfL worked with vehicle manufacturers to identify these vehicles and mark them compliant. The manufacturer confirmed that the vehicles met the required emission standards even though they may have been first registered as new before the above-mentioned dates.
What happened?
- This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
- Ms B bought a car. She says she checked whether it was ULEZ compliant.
- After purchasing and using the vehicle she received penalty charge notices (PCNs) because her vehicle was not deemed to be ULEZ compliant.
Analysis
- TfL says Ms B’s vehicle was registered new in March 2001. Because of this the vehicle is marked as ULEZ non-compliant as it was registered before the relevant standards became mandatory. TfL says this data has not changed since the ULEZ was launched in 2019. I have seen data from TfL that confirms this.
- TfL says as a result its online compliance checker will have always stated that Ms B’s vehicle is not complaint with the ULEZ. I have checked the details with the online ULEZ checker and the results show the vehicle is not compliant.
- Ms B says she checked with Auto-Trader and on TfL’s online ULEZ checker before she bought her vehicle. Ms B has provided emails to support she checked on Auto-Trader. There is no evidence to show she checked the TfL online ULEZ checker or that the outcome showed her vehicle was ULEZ compliant.
- Ms B appealed one of the PCNs. She provided a judgement from London Tribunals which appears to indicate that TfL accepted she had initially been provided with information that her vehicle was ULEZ compliant.
- TfL says the information it provided to London Tribunals was incorrect. It says, “the team who compiled the appeal pack did not carry out any checks against the historic information included in our database; had they have done so, this statement would not have been included in the pack.”
- TfL says it did not appeal the Tribunal outcome because it could only do so under certain limited circumstances, where a review is required in the interests of justice. TfL says its failure to adequately detail its case in an appeal pack would not normally be a reason for it to submit a request for a review.
- On the balance of probabilities TfL’s online ULEZ checker will not have shown Ms B’s vehicle to be ULEZ compliant. This is not fault by TfL.
Final decision
- I have not found fault by TfL. I have now completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman