The background to this FOI request is to disclose why TFL haven’t disclosed the number of drivers caught entering the ULEZ in the first month of operating this scheme. (your response to FOI - 7015 - 1920). Quoting from that statement issued by TFL “As the scheme was so new between 8th April to 10th May 2019 we issued warning notices rather than penalties to drivers seen in the ULEZ in non-compliant vehicles”. Although these numbers were not disclosed for the reason given – THESE STILL HAVE IMPORTANCE AS THEY’LL PROBABLY REVEAL THE SCALE OF THE NUMBERS CAUGHT DURING THIS TIME, WHICH WOULD IMPLY INADEQUACIES IN COMMUNICATING AWARENESS OF THE SCHEME TO THE ORDINARY DRIVER. Question 1. During the first month of the ULEZ scheme what were the total number of drivers of non-compliant vehicles caught entering the ULE Zone (and not fined for failing to pay the appropriate fee)? Question 2. What criteria did TFL use to determine that the ULEZ scheme was “too new” to (fairly charge drivers who were non-compliant) ? Question 3. After it was determined that the scheme was “too new” what measures or improvements (in signage etc.) were implemented to bring down the number of non-compliant drivers? Question 4. Following what would amount to an amnesty for drivers of the first non-compliant vehicles, what criteria did TFL consider before they declared the ULEZ scheme again operational?

---

TfL Ref: FOI-1562-1920

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 23 August 2019, asking for information about the ULEZ scheme.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.  I can confirm we do hold the information you require. You asked:

Question 1. During the first month of the ULEZ scheme what were the total number of drivers of non-compliant vehicles caught entering the ULE Zone (and not fined for failing to pay the appropriate fee)?

Between 8 April and 10 May, we issued 57,268 ULEZ warning notices to drivers who were observed within the ULEZ for non-payment of the daily charge instead of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).

Question 2. What criteria did TFL use to determine that the ULEZ scheme was “too new” to (fairly charge drivers who were non-compliant) ?

Question 3. After it was determined that the scheme was “too new” what measures or improvements (in signage etc.) were implemented to bring down the number of non-compliant drivers?

Question 4. Following what would amount to an amnesty for drivers of the first non-compliant vehicles, what criteria did TFL consider before they declared the ULEZ scheme again operational?

Regulation 12 of the “Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication)(London) Regulations 2001”, as amended, states that:

“12.—(1) Where a charge with respect to a vehicle under a charging scheme has not been paid by the time by which it is required by the scheme to be paid, the charging authority may serve a notice (“a penalty charge notice”).”

This regulation does not stipulate that a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) must be issued in all cases. The use of the word ‘may’ provides for discretion, and TfL can use that discretion to consider the issue of warning notices rather than a PCN. At the start of the ULEZ scheme we opted to use that discretionary approach. The decision was taken to issue warning notices while the scheme was new as it provided further time to promote awareness to motorists of the requirements of the ULEZ and of the need to comply. TfL has previously adopted this approach for similar schemes as there are always some people who will genuinely have made a mistake. TfL believes that for the first contravention it is appropriate for a warning letter to be sent rather than a fine. Warning letters were issued for the first contravention during the first month of the scheme.

As the warning notices was about increasing awareness of the ULEZ it was not necessary to make any changes to the signage.

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

---