Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s refusal to refund Mr X’s payments for driving in the ultra-low emission zone since 2022. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London in making the charges. The Authority accepts it wrongly awarded Mr X an exemption from paying the charge, but this did not cause Mr X injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) unlawfully charged him more than £10,000 over a three-year period for driving in its ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ). He says TfL and the DVLA have both confirmed his vehicle meets the exemption criteria for the ULEZ and he should therefore never have been charged; he wants TfL to refund every payment he had made for driving in the ULEZ since he purchased the car in 2022.
2. Mr X also complains TfL delayed in dealing with his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

8. The ULEZ charging scheme requires motorists to pay a daily charge for driving in the ULEZ if their vehicles do not meet the relevant emissions standards. Diesel cars must meet ‘Euro 6’ standards for emissions in respect of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.
9. Part of Mr X’s complaint concerns TfL’s charges for driving in the ULEZ more than 12 months ago. Any complaint about these charges is late as set out at Paragraph 5 and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate.
10. While Mr X’s complaint also refers to charges made within the past 12 months I have seen no evidence of fault by TfL which has caused Mr X injustice; we will not therefore investigate further.

Mr X’s case

11. Mr X had an initial V5 vehicle registration document which did not provide sufficient information to show the vehicle complied with the Euro 6 emissions standards. He obtained a new V5 from the DVLA in February 2025 which showed his vehicle as meeting Euro 6 standards and submitted this information to TfL. TfL accepted it and wrote to Mr X confirming the vehicle was exempt from paying the ULEZ charge. Mr X then wrote back requesting a refund of all ULEZ charges paid for the vehicle since he purchased it in 2022, but TfL declined.
12. On review, TfL noted that while the DVLA had classified Mr X’s vehicle as Euro 6 compliant, the emissions standards for the vehicle did not meet those required for Euro 6 status. TfL therefore wrote to Mr X explaining it had agreed the exemption in error and that, unless he could provide information to show it met the Euro 6 emissions standards for nitrogen oxides and particulate matter it would end the exemption with effect from September 2025.
13. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
14. TfL’s correspondence shows it used the correct emissions figures and that regardless of the information on the V5, Mr X’s vehicle does not meet the required emissions standards to qualify for the exemption from the ULEZ charge.
15. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way TfL reached its decision and because Mr X’s vehicle does not meet the required emissions standards, he is not entitled to any refund for charges he has already paid for driving in the ULEZ.
16. While TfL accepts there was an administrative error, the error in this case was accepting the vehicle as exempt. This has caused Mr X no injustice; rather it has provided him with the benefit of being able to drive in the ULEZ between February and September 2025 without paying the ULEZ charge despite the fact he should have done so. This does not warrant further investigation as we could not justify any remedy for Mr X.
17. Mr X is also unhappy with the way TfL dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL in the way it decided Mr X was not entitled to the exemption from paying the ULEZ. TfL’s administrative error in awarded Mr X the exemption did not cause Mr X injustice and does not therefore warrant any remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman