Summary: TfL billed Mr X’s company for journeys it did not make in the low emission zone. An apology, payment to Mr X and a discussion with him about any outstanding incorrect charges is satisfactory remedy for Mr X’s distress and the time and trouble he had to go to.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained TfL repeatedly charged his company for journeys in the low emission zone (LEZ) which his vehicles did not make.
2. Mr X says TfL’s actions led to his company incurring significant costs.

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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I am investigating what has happened since June 2023. That is because I am satisfied Mr X did not know about the incorrect charges until October 2024. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman within 12 months.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr X's comments;
• made enquiries of TfL and considered the comments and documents TfL provided.
7. Mr X 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

8. Mr X operates a company which uses HGVs. Mr X's company uses an autopay account to pay LEZ charges. Under that system when a vehicle passes through the LEZ TfL cameras capture its registration and an image of the vehicle. If the registration is listed on an autopay account the charge for the vehicle is automatically applied to the account.
9. Mr X says, and TfL accepts, TfL has charged him for trips his vehicles did not make. TfL explained this can be for several reasons such as when only part of a number plate is visible to its cameras or when the format of the number plate is misread. Because of that Mr X has had to challenge incorrect charges and TfL has refunded more than £7,000.
10. TfL says it has now added the number plate for Mr X's vehicle that TfL has charged in error to its detailed manual assurance list. Because the vehicle is now on that list TfL manually reviews any charges based on that registration before applying the charge. TfL says it believes that has gone some way to resolving the issue as Mr X has not disputed any charges since mid-2025.
11. TfL accepts though it has overcharged Mr X by a significant amount and has failed to provide a full and detailed response to his complaint. That is fault. TfL has offered the following remedy:
• an apology;
• payment of £250;
• a discussion with Mr X to clarify whether he is satisfied TfL has refunded all the charges applied in error;
• if Mr X identifies any incorrect charges he believes are still outstanding TfL will review those and consider any refunds. TfL says though as it only holds images of vehicles in the zone for three months it may not be able to verify the validity of any historic charges not already refunded.
12. I welcome TfL admitting fault in this case and for offering a remedy. I consider an apology and payment of £250 a satisfactory remedy to reflect the distress caused to Mr X and the time and trouble he has had to go to in challenging the incorrect charges.
13. I also welcome TfL's offer to discuss whether Mr X knows about any further incorrect charges which TfL has not refunded. Mr X says there are other charges TfL has not refunded which are more than three months old. I appreciate TfL may no longer have evidence to check. However, Mr X keeps tracking data for his vehicles and some of his vehicles are subject to statutory off the road notification.
14. I consider a more satisfactory remedy for Mr X would be for TfL to consider any representations Mr X has to make about outstanding incorrect charges which TfL has not refunded. TfL should then ask Mr X for any evidence for those charges where it no longer holds records. TfL should then make a decision on refunds in those cases based on Mr X's evidence. TfL has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Action

15. Within one month of my decision TfL should:
• apologise to Mr X for the distress and time and trouble he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. TfL may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr X £250.
16. Within three months of my decision TfL should contact Mr X to see whether he has any evidence of further incorrect charges which TfL has not refunded. If he does TfL should consult its own records. If those records no longer exist, TfL should consider Mr X’s records before deciding whether to make any further refunds.
17. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I find fault causing injustice. TfL has agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman