Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Ultra Low Emission Zone because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). She says the scheme has nothing to do with emissions as non-compliant vehicles can enter the zone. She disagrees with the charges she has had to pay and wants a refund.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Authority. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about the ULEZ. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X complained to the Authority about the ULEZ. She said she drives a non-compliant vehicle, for a business, which she cannot bring up to standard. She said the scheme has nothing to do with emissions because non-compliant vehicles can still drive in the zone. She asked the Authority for a refund of the ULEZ charges she has paid, compensation, and help to buy a compliant van.
5. The Authority explained that the ULEZ was introduced to reduce air pollution. The scheme encourages people to reduce pollution either by driving compliant vehicles or by having to pay a charge to enter the zone. The Authority explained that pollution has fallen since the scheme started. The Authority said that some vehicles are exempt but her van is not in an exempt category. It said that to exempt non-compliant vehicles would defeat the purpose of the scheme.
6. The Authority is required to operate the ULEZ scheme in accordance with the regulations. The scheme says non-compliant vehicles, unless exempt, must pay a daily charge to enter the zone. Ms X drives a non-compliant vehicle, which is not exempt, so she must pay the charge. There is no suggestion of fault in the way the Authority has responded to Ms X or in its decision that she must pay the charge if she drives into the zone. Ms X says the scheme has nothing to do with emissions but it acts as a deterrent to driving non-compliant vehicles into the zone. I recognise Ms X disagrees with the scheme but we do not have the power to change it or to tell the Authority it must exempt her van, pay compensation or issue a refund.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman