Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Ultra Low Emission Zone because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority implied an incorrect ratio for his vehicle’s emissions, leading to a charge to incorrectly apply for the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). He says the Authority then fail to provide an affordable route for him to have his vehicle tested to check its emissions and have refused to accept the information he has been able to provide, without spending a significant amount to have his vehicle tested at an approved centre.
2. Mr Y feels this is unfair and feels upset when he reads other vehicle owners are being pursued by bailiffs for charges which should not apply. He also says he avoids travelling into the zone as a result.

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 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Authority operates two charging schemes, the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) and the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).The London Low Emission Zone Scheme Order 2006, (the ‘Scheme Order’), sets out the vehicles affected and whether they meet the emissions standards.
6. Some vehicle manufacturers made vehicles to meet the compliance standards before the mandatory dates for new vehicles being required to have low emissions. Prior to the launch of the ULEZ, the Authority worked with vehicle manufacturers to identify these vehicles and mark them compliant.
7. The Authority’s online compliance checker contains information about the steps a person can take if they believe their vehicle is compliant with ULEZ emission standards. This includes obtaining information about emissions from the manufacturer (known as a certificate of conformity) or having the vehicle tested for emissions at an approved centre.

Analysis

8. Mr Y complained the Authority has wrongly said his vehicle is not compliant with the emission levels required to drive within the ULEZ without being charged. Mr Y has provided evidence, which in his view shows his vehicle is compliant.
9. The Authority has explained why it disagrees with Mr Y’s view as part of its complaint response with reference to the evidence Mr Y has provided. It has also provided Mr Y with information on how he can seek testing for his vehicle to potentially obtain a certificate of conformity if its emissions are below the required level.
10. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. As the Authority has considered the evidence and has been able to explain its reasons why it does not accept his vehicle as being compliant based on the information provided, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigation. We will not investigate.
11. The onus to prove compliance and the cost of this resting with the registered keeper of the vehicle appears to be set out in the London Low Emission Zone Scheme Order 2006. It is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether this is lawful or fair – as such consideration would fall under the jurisdiction of the courts. As the Authority does not set the pricing for such tests, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman