Summary: Mr B complained about Transport for London’s decision that his vehicle is not exempt from the ULEZ charge. He believes its decision is unreasonable and he has not had access to an independent right of appeal. We found no fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Transport for London (TfL) unreasonably decided his vehicle was not exempt from the ULEZ charge as he had not provided sufficient information about its emissions. It also failed to give him a right of appeal against that view and sent the debt straight to the enforcement agents for collection. He said this has caused and continues to cause Mr B distress and financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and TfL as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr B and TfL had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)

6. TfL established this charging scheme in April 2019. This allows TfL to charge vehicles which do meet specified emissions standards for driving in designated areas in London. The current charge is £12.50 per day.
7. TfL has to be satisfied that any vehicle meets the emission standard to deem it compliant with ULEZ and therefore exempt from the charge. Diesel cars need to meet the Euro 6 standard and petrol cars the Euro 4 standard. The Scheme Order says that the onus is on the vehicle owner to provide evidence to show their vehicle is compliant.
8. TfL says it usually obtains sufficient data from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to establish whether a vehicle meets the standards. It says a key element of the information it uses is the first date of registration, alongside the emission standards introduced by the European Union and the respective dates of implementation. For example any diesel car registered as new after 1 September 2015 and any petrol car registered after 1 January 2006 will be compliant.
9. For cars registered before these dates TfL requires additional information either from the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) or from some vehicle manufacturers.
10. However, it recognises that in some circumstances it may not be able to establish compliance as there is no national requirement to record vehicle emission data. For these situations it has set up an enquiry service to enable vehicle owners to provide information where they think TfL has made the wrong decision in respect of their vehicle. Such evidence could include a Certificate of Conformity from the vehicle manufacturer confirming emissions or evidence that a vehicle has been tested and the relevant emissions standards met. It also says that if the vehicle owner can confirm the vehicle emissions to the DVLA and its records are updated, it would automatically make the vehicle compliant.

Penalty Charge Notices

11. If a motorist does not pay the right fee for using certain roads, they might get a fine. This fine is called a Penalty Charge Notice.
12. The authority will send the notice to the person who appears to own the vehicle (usually the registered keeper) by post. The notice will show the fine amount and how to appeal.
13. The fine is usually halved if is paid within 14 days.
14. The authority can issue a charge certificate which increases the fine by 50% if:

• the fine is not paid;
• the motorist does not appeal against the fine; or
• an appeal is not successful.

15. If the fine is still not paid, the authority can register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. The authority can then ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to collect payment for the fine and the bailiff’s costs.

Auto-Pay system

16. People can also set up an auto-pay account to pay the ULEZ charge. This system issues a monthly statement detailing the charges and the date payment is due. TfL says at this point a person can dispute the charges and log a dispute through their account with TfL. TfL will then consider the dispute and issue a response. There is no further right of appeal.
17. If no dispute is received and the charges are not paid TfL issues a payment failure letter requesting payment. If payment is still not made TfL suspends the account and then closes it. If the debt remains unpaid TfL passes the debt to a collection agency to recover the debt. It is not registered with a court, and no warrant is issued. This procedure is outlined in its terms and conditions when a person signs up to the system.
18. The information on its website about the scheme says it provides protection from PCNs while a person is registered with the scheme and the fee does not attract any additional charges.

What happened

19. Mr B’s car is an American import manufactured in 2004. He uses his car in London and since January 2025 has incurred charges for driving in an ULEZ with a non-compliant vehicle. He signed up to the auto-pay system and received monthly statements detailing the charges. Each statement included the following statement:

“Please check the information on this statement carefully and contact us immediately if you wish to dispute any transactions.”

20. By March 2025 he owed £200. He complained to TfL via his MP saying that he had provided enough information and that TfL should be satisfied his vehicle was compliant. If it was not satisfied it should do further research itself.
21. TfL replied explaining that as Mr B’s car was imported from America and was manufactured in 2004, it could not establish that its emissions were compliant with the European standards. It explained what information Mr B needed to provide and confirmed that the burden of proof was on Mr B to provide the necessary evidence.
22. On 31 March 2025 TfL sent Mr B a pre-suspension letter saying if the balance was not cleared it would suspend the account. It suspended the account on 7 April 2025 and closed it a week later. The outstanding debt was £437.50. TfL then passed the debt to a collection agency. They sent a recovery letter to Mr B in June 2025 for this amount. At no point has TfL received a dispute from Mr B regarding the charges.
23. In response to my enquiries TfL said that Mr B has continued to use the vehicle in an ULEZ and has incurred further fines: a total of 20 PCNs have been issued. TfL says it will accept payment of these to the standard £12.50 charge making a total of £250. But the Auto-Pay balance remains outstanding and payable.

Findings

24. The ULEZ scheme is clear that the onus is on the vehicle-owner to provide sufficient information to satisfy TfL that a vehicle meets the emissions standards. TfL has explained to Mr B why it cannot accept his vehicle is exempt without more information and has explained what information he needs to provide. I have not found fault with the way TfL made that decision.
25. The Auto-Pay scheme explains in its terms and conditions that it is an alternative way of paying which does not involve receiving PCNs and the much higher charges these can incur. TfL will consider disputes about Auto-Pay charges and then people can complain to us if they are dissatisfied. I do not find fault with the lack of an independent appeal right as the scheme is an alternative way of paying and has advantages over the PCN route, particularly if a person drives in an ULEZ regularly. Mr B has had the option to dispute the charges to TfL but has not done so.
26. I also note that once Mr B’s Auto-Pay account was closed he received PCNs but has not appealed against these either. This indicates he does not wish to appeal TfL’s individual charges. I consider the Council’s offer to reduce these debts to the original charge of £12.50, is a helpful gesture, significantly reducing the financial burden for Mr B. I find no fault in its actions here.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman