Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an exemption for a motorbike from the Ultra Low Emission Zone daily charge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Authority will not exempt his motorbike from the daily charge to drive in the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). He wants the Authority to treat his bike as an exception.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered information on the Authority’s website and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lives within the ULEZ. He owns a non-compliant bike which means he must pay a charge of £12.50 to drive in the zone. His bike was built in 1990.
6. Mr X asked the Authority to exempt his bike from the charge. He explained he cannot afford the ULEZ charge and he only uses the bike for about half the year. He says the policy is unfair.
7. The Authority said that historic vehicles are exempt from the charge and this applies to vehicles built before 1973 or to vehicles that are more than 40 years old and are registered with the DVLA as historic. It explained that bikes must meet the Euro three emission standards which usually applies to bikes manufactured after 2007. The Authority has not granted Mr X any form of exemption.
8. Mr X has not said his bike meets the emission standards or that it satisfies the criteria to be treated as a historic vehicle. Mr X says he may have to sell his bike; if he does, he says he will buy a historic bike that will be more polluting. Mr X does not want to buy a compliant bike.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. This is because the Authority’s decision that Mr X does not qualify for an exemption reflects the policy. His bike was not built before 1973 and is not registered as historic with the DVLA. Mr X has not suggested it meets the Euro three standard. The Authority’s decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
10. We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to re-make the decision or tell the Authority it must issue an exemption when that would be contrary to the rules. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the policy but the Authority sets the policy and we cannot change it or ask the Authority not to apply the policy to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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