Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s decision that the complainant’s car does not meet the emission standard for the Ultra Low Emission Zone. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says his car is compliant with the emission standard for the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). He says the Authority will not accept this even though he has provided evidence and shown that similar cars have been accepted as compliant. Mr X wants the Authority to register his car as compliant.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Authority decided Mr X’s car is not compliant with the emission standard and must pay to enter the ULEZ.
5. Mr X disagrees. He sent some evidence to the Authority and explained that similar cars meet the standard.
6. The Authority considered the evidence and explained why it does not show the car is compliant. It explained that the manufacturer had told the Authority that cars manufactured when Mr X’s car was manufactured are not compliant. The manufacturer explained that the certificate of conformity that was issued shows a zero value for NOx because, at that time, it was not required to record the NOx.
7. The Authority told Mr X that to be exempt from the ULEZ charge he must submit evidence that the NOx emission from the car is less that 0.08g/km. It said he had not provided this evidence and, as explained above, the certificate of conformity did not record the NOx. The Authority said it cannot exempt his car based on comments he made about other vehicles.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. The Authority explained why it decided Mr X’s car is not compliant and it explained the evidence Mr X needs to supply to show the car is compliant. Mr X has made many comments about why he thinks he should be exempt from the ULEZ charge but I have not seen anything to suggest he provided the evidence about NOx emissions to prove the car is compliant. The Authority will review the case if Mr X provides evidence which shows compliance with the emission standard.
9. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to decide if the car is compliant. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Aiuthority processed the compliance application and I see no suggestion of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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