Summary: Miss D complains TFL incorrectly changed the status of her vehicle to non ULEZ compliant and delayed responding to her complaint. There is fault in respect of complaint handling but no fault regarding the compliance issue. TFL has already offered a reasonable remedy to Miss D for the complaint handling.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says she bought a used vehicle after the Transport For London (TFL) Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) checker showed it to be ULEZ compliant in 2023. TFL failed to notify her it had changed the vehicle status to non-compliant in February 2024 and failed to respond to three complaints that year. Miss D wants TFL to accept her vehicle is ULEZ compliant/ provide a long-term exemption.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have exercised discretion and go back to October 2022 to cover what happened with the initial registration of the vehicle as ULEZ compliant with TFL. My investigation covers up to 3 April 2025 when the complaint response was issued.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and TFL as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Some of the documentation provided by TFL relates to its confidential fraud investigation, I cannot share those details, but I am satisfied I have seen all the relevant evidence I need to reach a decision.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Events before my investigation period

7. In February 2022 TFL received reports via its online reporting system of potentially fraudulent ULEZ registrations. I cannot go into details about the fraud investigation, but I have seen documents which show TFL took action and started to investigate the report in 2022.

2022

8. In October 2022 the vehicle was registered by the then keeper of the vehicle with TFL as ULEZ compliant. The owner supplied documentation from the manufacturer showing the emissions standards were met and the car was ULEZ compliant.

2023

9. In January 2023 Miss D says she used the TFL vehicle checker to see if a vehicle she wanted to buy was ULEZ compliant. The checker showed the car was ULEZ compliant and Miss D purchased the car and registered it with TFL.
10. In 2023 TFL continued its fraud investigation including making contact with vehicle manufacturers. It started to work through thousands of vehicles to check if they were ULEZ compliant and those found to not be compliant had their status changed to non ULEZ compliant. TFL wrote to the person who had originally registered the vehicle with it as ULEZ compliant informing them of the change.

2024

11. In February 2024 TFL changed the status of Miss D’s vehicle to non ULEZ compliant. A letter was sent to the original owner as they were the person who had registered the vehicle with TFL as ULEZ compliant. On 15 April 2024 Miss D told TFL she had started receiving ULEZ charges for her vehicle without an explanation and its status had changed to being non ULEZ compliant. TFL replied to Miss D asking for a full copy of the vehicle registration document and for a conformity certificate or a manufacturers letter. It explained she could ask the manufacturer’s homologation department for specific information on the vehicle’s emissions.
12. On 29 April Miss D asked TFL to update its records to show her vehicle tax class had changed to disabled status. TFL confirmed that day it would update its records. On 2 May Miss D sent TFL the vehicle registration documents. TFL replied that her vehicle was disabled tax class and it arranged for it to be covered (i.e. exempt from charges) until November whilst it waited for DVLA details to be updated. On 9 May TFL also contacted Miss D, there had been a ‘processing error’ resulting in four ULEZ charges which it would refund. On 13 May Miss D complained to TFL that she had bought her car in 2023 after using the TFL compliance checker. At that time it showed as ULEZ compliant but now she was receiving ULEZ charges without any explanation. On 18 May TFL replied that it had considered five ULEZ charges in May which were being refunded. It did not explain why the refunds were being made or respond to the main complaint.
13. On 24 October Miss D contacted TFL and repeated her complaint about the change in compliance status for her vehicle. She also enclosed a copy of her earlier complaint and said she had not received a response. On 31 October TFL emailed Miss D, it noted her contact had been a ULEZ enquiry. The email stated Miss D could request an escalated complaint.
14. On 21 November TFL told Miss D it had received a refund request for ULEZ payments made in May. On 17 December TFL contacted Miss D about a refund request. It said it did not have correspondence showing it had confirmed the vehicle was ULEZ compliant. It repeated that Miss D should supply a conformity certificate or get a letter from the manufacturer.

2025

15. On 16 January 2025 TFL wrote to Miss D, it said because her vehicle was disabled tax class, she was currently exempt from ULEZ charges. On 23 January Miss D told TFL it had failed to explain how it had changed the compliance status on her vehicle and wanted the complaint to be escalated. On 31 January TFL wrote to Miss D. It said the vehicle registration document provided in May 2024 showed the vehicle was not ULEZ compliant. However the vehicle was exempt from charges until October 2027 because Miss D had disabled tax class.
16. Miss D complained to the Ombudsman; we considered her complaint was premature and asked TFL to issue a final stage complaint response. We chased this up with TFL in 2025 and it issued a final stage reply to Miss D on 3 April. TFL apologised for the delay responding. It also apologised for the distress caused to Miss D by the poor case handling and time taken to resolve. It accepted it had not previously answered queries about compliance and some complaints had been left without a response. It explained the vehicle was registered with TFL in 2022 by the previous owner. They had submitted documents showing the vehicle was ULEZ compliant and TFL has accepted the vehicle was ULEZ compliant at that time. However subsequent checks with the manufacturer had confirmed the documentation provided in 2022 was “not authentic”. This led to TFL changing the status of the vehicle to non ULEZ compliant in February 2024. TFL said it had written to the previous owner because they had registered the car with TFL. It did not hold registered keeper details for vehicles and so did not know the vehicle had been sold to Miss D and was unable to advise her at the time. TFL said it was correct to change the compliance status for the vehicle, but it should have explained its actions when Miss D contacted it. The case had not been correctly investigated and its responses had “created further confusion and uncertainty” for Miss D. All ULEZ charges would be refunded to Miss D and a payment of £200 for time and trouble was offered.

What should have happened

17. The ULEZ scheme aims to improve air quality by imposing charges on certain vehicles that do not meet low emissions standards.

ULEZ standards and checks

18. To meet the ULEZ emissions standards a vehicle must meet the required Euro standard for the vehicle and emission type. All diesel cars registered as new after 1 September 2015 and petrol cars registered as new after 1 January 2006 are usually compliant with ULEZ emissions standards.
19. ULEZ is enforced by TFL based on the declared emissions of the vehicle rather than age. TFL uses information from DVLA which confirms if a vehicle is compliant and can supplement that with data from additional sources including the Vehicle Certification Agency, vehicle manufacturers, etc. TFL’s data agreement with DVLA does not allow it to seek registered owner information in respect of fraudulent ULEZ registration matters.

Vehicle checker

20. To check if a vehicle is ULEZ compliant the vehicle owner can use the TFL online vehicle checker. The site links to a static list of all UK registered vehicles and their compliance status. The data is refreshed every four weeks with updated information from DVLA. When a customer uses the checker, they are shown a disclaimer message stating the “information is based on what we know about your vehicle. This may change without warning, always check to see if you need to pay to drive in London”.

Autopay

21. A customer can set up an autopay account to pay for a range of charges including ULEZ charges. They can register up to five vehicles on an account and do need to be the registered keeper of the vehicles. The autopay account does not show if the customer is the registered keeper of the vehicle. Autopay automatically bills a customer every month for charges including ULEZ charges owed.

Contesting compliance, exemptions and grace periods

22. If a customer believes their vehicle is compliant but TFL disagrees they can use the online enquiry service and request TFL review the compliance status of the vehicle. They should supply supporting evidence which can include a certificate of conformity or a letter from the manufacturer’s homologation department showing the vehicle’s emissions. TFL will only consider evidence specific to the actual vehicle rather than general information on a make and model of vehicle. If TFL is satisfied the evidence shows the vehicle is compliant it will notify the registered keeper of the vehicle and update its records.
23. TFL will not apply an exemption to a non-compliant vehicle which has been subject to the provision of fraudulent documentation.
24. TFL offers a grace period for disabled Londoners with vehicles that are not ULEZ compliant meaning they do not have to pay the ULEZ charges. This runs up to 24 October 2027. The Disabled Passenger Vehicle Tax Class applies to vehicles registered with DVLA as having a disabled or disabled passenger vehicle tax class. A customer can apply to TFL for this exemption with supporting documents.

PCNs

25. If a non-compliant vehicle is used in the ULEZ zone and payment is not made for the daily charge TFL can issue a penalty charge notice (PCN). The PCN is issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, and they have 28 days to pay or make representations challenging the penalty.

Complaints

26. Complaints made to TFL are automatically logged on its system. TFL should issue to a response to initial and escalated complaints within 10 days.

Fraud investigation

27. Once TFL established the mechanisms of the fraud it checked each potentially non ULEZ compliant vehicle, this included checks against the documentation provided. Vehicles most likely to be at risk of fraud (for example older vehicles) were checked first and then other vehicles worked through. Where a vehicle was found to be fraudulently registered as ULEZ compliant TFL removed the vehicle from its compliance register and wrote to the person who had supplied the documentation (the registered owner at that time).

Was there fault by TFL

28. TFL has already acknowledged there were failings in how it dealt with Miss D’s complaint. Miss D first asked about the change in compliance status in April 2024, but it took 12 months before she received an explanation. TFL accepts the delay was not acceptable and its actions fell below its expected standards. Miss D’s queries and complaints in 2024 were incorrectly handled as refund requests because, by then, her vehicle was exempt from ULEZ charges due to a change in the tax class. TFL recognises that carrying out refunds failed to deal with Miss D’s key concern. In addition there was an error by an Officer allocated the complaint, they failed to deal with it promptly. TFL could and should have provided Miss D with a full explanation of what had happened with the compliance matter by May 2024 at the latest.
29. Miss D’s main concern is the change of compliance status on her vehicle. I have not found evidence of fault by TFL in this matter. TFL had a duty to investigate reports of fraud which potentially impacted on thousands of vehicles. This investigation was progressed through 2022 and 2023. TFL then had to check vehicles to see if they had been registered as compliant using fraudulent documentation. Unfortunately Miss D’s car had been registered using false documents before she purchased it. At the time it was registered TFL did not know the documentation was false. Once TFL was aware of the issue with the vehicle in February 2024 it followed the process it had adopted for these cases: it removed the vehicle from the compliance register and wrote to the person who had registered it with TFL. TFL did not have access, due to data sharing restrictions, that Miss D was now the registered owner. Miss D had an autopay account but that did not mean she was the registered owner of the vehicle because autopay accounts allow a person to pay for several vehicles without owning them. I am satisfied TFL followed the correct process. However, as set out above, it should have notified Miss D of its actions once she contacted it in April 2024. The decision to change the compliance status was something TFL had the right to do.
30. Miss D has asked whether TFL will exempt her vehicle from ULEZ charges indefinitely or to refund the cost of the vehicle. I cannot ask TFL to consider these matters because I have not found evidence of fault in the actions regarding change of compliance. The source of this problem was false documentation supplied by a third party rather than actions by TFL.

Did the fault cause an injustice

31. The delays in handling Miss D’s complaint meant she was caused avoidable time and trouble. TFL has already offered Miss D £200 which I consider to be a reasonable remedy.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice, TFL has already offered to remedy the injustice to Miss D.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman