Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding the implementation of Transport for London’s Low Emission Zone. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with Transport for London’s publicity campaigns.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr D, complains that Transport for London (TfL) failed to give the public any advance warning of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) coming into effect. He says this was in stark contrast to the Ultra Low Emissions Zone which was well publicised by TfL.
2. Mr D was renovating a diesel vehicle before the LEZ came into effect. He says once he found out about the LEZ charges he had to sell the vehicle at a loss as it would have cost him £100 per day to drive it.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr D along with our Assessment Code.
5. I also considered Mr D’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. While it is unfortunate Mr D was unaware of it, it is evident TfL did advertise the LEZ. It produced publicity campaigns on the radio, in trade press, digital search engines and letters sent through the DVLA and its own database to non-compliant vehicle owners.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with TfL in the way it publicised the LEZ.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman