Summary: Mr B says Transport for London misled him about whether his car was compliant with the ultra low emission zone and failed to address the points he raised about the costs he incurred when responding to his complaint. Transport for London provided Mr B with an incorrect outcome for his compliance check and failed to explain why that did not mean it should reimburse him for his costs. An apology and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained the Authority (TfL):
• misled him about whether his car complied with the ultra low emission zone ((ULEZ); and
• failed to address the points he raised about the costs he had incurred when responding to his complaint.
2. Mr B says as a result he has incurred costs which TfL has not considered.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Authority and considered the comments and documents the Authority provided.
7. Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. TfL launched the ULEZ scheme in April 2019 and since then, it has provided information online to help registered owners check whether their vehicle is compliant and how to prove compliance if not.
9. For a diesel car to be ULEZ compliant it must meet the Euro 6 standards. TfL rely on information provided by the DVLA to update its compliance database, which it does monthly.

What happened

10. Mr B owned a diesel car produced before 2015. Mr B says he went on to TfL’s compliance checker for ULEZ and input his car details on 18 September 2023. Mr B has produced a printout showing the result he received was that his car was compliant. Mr B also produced a screenshot from his phone on 16 September 2023 showing the car details and confirming it was compliant.
11. TfL says it did not receive an update on its records for Mr B’s car until 19 September 2023. TfL says, as a result, if Mr B had input his car details on 18 September 2023 the details would not have been recognised. TfL says this means any result Mr B received on 18 September would have shown the car as compliant as all unknown cars are shown as compliant until information is received from DVLA. That is because the assumption from the system is the car is new. TfL says though the printout would show only the registration of the car and not the make and model as the car is not recognised.
12. TfL says because Mr B’s printout shows the make and model of the car it can only have been checked after 19 September 2023. TfL says though after the update on 19 September 2023 the car is shown as not compliant. TfL therefore does not consider the printout Mr B has provided comes from its website.
13. When responding to Mr B’s complaint in January 2024 TfL said when Mr B originally used the compliance checker the records were being updated which is why he received an incorrect result. TfL noted the records had now been updated and the checker correctly showed Mr B’s car as non-compliant.
14. Mr B raised concerns about TfL not responding to the points he had made about the costs he incurred due to receiving wrong information. TfL said it had never considered Mr B’s car compliant. TfL said it therefore did not consider it had a liability to reimburse Mr B’s costs.
15. Mr B continued to chase TfL as he was not satisfied it had addressed the link between the incorrect information provided and the costs he incurred. TfL warned Mr B it would apply its unreasonably persistent complainant policy to him if he continued to contact it about the same issues.

Analysis

16. Mr B says TfL misled him about whether his car was compliant with ULEZ as its online compliance checker said his car was compliant when it was not. Mr B says he relied on that information and spent money making the car roadworthy before he found out the car was not compliant. Mr B says he lost money on the sale of the car because it was not compliant. Mr B believes TfL is responsible for those losses as he believes they were incurred due to TfL providing him with wrong information about whether his car was compliant.
17. I am satisfied Mr B’s car was a diesel car produced before 2015. I am satisfied diesel cars produced before 2015 are generally not compliant unless the manufacturer was an early adopter. TfL has advised the manufacturer was not an early adopter in this case. On the face of it that suggests Mr B’s car was never compliant.
18. Mr B has provided a printout though which he says he obtained from TfL’s website. That records the car registration and the make and model of car and says it meets the emissions standards and is therefore compliant.
19. TfL says cars for which it does not hold any information will show on the compliance checker as compliant. However, in those circumstances TfL says the results will only record the registration of the car and not the make and model. So, as Mr B’s printout shows both the registration and the make and model TfL says the printout showing it as compliant cannot have been from its website as TfL did not hold any details for the car before 19 September 2023.
20. In addition to the printout though Mr B has also provided a screenshot from his phone on 16 September 2023. That screenshot shows it is from TfL’s website and confirms Mr B’s car was compliant as it met the emission standards. That information was incorrect as TfL’s own records show Mr B’s car has never been compliant.
21. I recognise TfL dispute whether the result Mr B received came from its website. I have considered that. I note the printout does not provide any identifying features to confirm it is from TfL’s website. However, in its response to Mr B’s representations in January 2024 TfL said when Mr B originally used the compliance checker the records were being updated and an incorrect result was presented. I am therefore satisfied TfL accepted Mr B had received an incorrect result from its website. As well as that, Mr B provided a screenshot from his phone showing the result from TfL’s website on 16 September 2023. That screenshot shows the registration for Mr B’s car and the make and model and confirms it is compliant. That screenshot also includes the website address from which it is taken and that is TfL’s website.
22. When there is a conflict in the evidence, as there is here, the Ombudsman has to reach a decision on the balance of probability. Taking into account the confirmation from the screenshot and TfL’s acceptance its website provided an incorrect result when it was being updated I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, when Mr B used TfL’s compliance checker it produced an inaccurate result. That is fault.
23. Mr B says TfL failed to respond to his request for reimbursement of the costs he incurred. I am satisfied TfL addressed that in its response of 29 January 2024. In that email TfL said as it had never recorded Mr B’s car as compliant it did not consider the request for reimbursement valid. However, the point Mr B was making was that he had incurred the costs because of incorrect information provided by TfL’s website. The complaint response failed to address that point. I am satisfied that is why Mr B continued to contact TfL, which resulted in it warning him about unreasonably persistent behaviour. I am therefore not satisfied TfL responded to the points Mr B raised about the link between the incorrect information and the costs he incurred. Failure to address that point is fault.
24. I now have to consider what injustice Mr B has suffered due to receiving incorrect information from TfL’s website. Mr B says he has suffered a financial loss. First, Mr B says he had to sell his car at a loss. I am satisfied though the value of Mr B’s car was affected by the fact it is a non-compliant car. So, the fact Mr B had to sell the car at a loss is not due to any fault by TfL. I therefore cannot recommend TfL refund the loss in value of the car.
25. For the amount Mr B spent on the car to make it roadworthy I appreciate he may not have chosen to do that if he had known the car was not compliant. However, I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, the work Mr B had undertaken on the car also increased its value and affected the amount Mr B sold it for. I therefore cannot recommend TfL refund the cost Mr B incurred to make the car roadworthy. Instead, I consider Mr B’s injustice is limited to his frustration about receiving incorrect information and the time and trouble he has had to go to pursuing his complaint. As remedy for that I recommended TfL apologise to Mr B and pay him £100. TfL has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within one month of my decision the Authority should:
• apologise to Mr B for the frustration he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Authority may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr B £100.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman