The total number of ULEZ fines issued to those who have responded saying that they did not know.
Request ID: FOI-3856-2324 Date published: 03 April 2024
You asked
I request information on: the absolute number, and as a proportion of all fines issued, of:
ULEZ fines issued which are subsequently challenged on Grounds three - no penalty charge payable - stratified into those accepted and rejected, and with the comments provided for the appeal.
ULEZ fines appealed on the basis the individual thought the car was exempt from the ULEZ charge, stratified into those accepted and rejected, and with the comments provided for the appeal.
ULEZ fines appealed on the basis the individual was not aware that they entered the ULEZ (including those who used diversionary routes), stratified into those accepted and rejected, and with the comments provided for the appeal.
ULEZ fines appealed on none of the six grounds of challenge on the basis of any variation of "not knowing that they had to pay the charge" either because they did not think that they entered the zone or because they believed that their car was exempt, stratified into those accepted and rejected, and with the comments provided for the appeal.
In addition: the number of requests made to TFL either through email, phone, or letter, inquiring if an outstanding ULEZ charge is due on a vehicle
We answered
Our Ref: FOI-3856-2324 Thank you for clarifying the request asking for information about Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) penalty charge notices (PCNs). Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and our information access policy. I can confirm we hold some of the information you require. As with all TfL’s road charging schemes, when we issue a ULEZ penalty the recipient has the right to challenge the penalty by submitting a representation. If the representation is accepted the PCN is cancelled, or, when the representation is on the grounds that the vehicle was on hire or the recipient didn’t own the vehicle, reissued. However, if it is rejected the recipient has a further right to appeal against this decision to an Independent Adjudicator at London Tribunals. When responding to representations we do exercise discretion and consider mitigating circumstances. This can result in a representation being accepted despite a penalty being correctly issued. Any net revenue from the ULEZ, including from penalty charges, is reinvested into the transport network. Our online vehicle compliance checker uses DVLA data and a range of published data from the Vehicle Certification Agency to allow drivers to find out if their vehicle meets emissions standards. The inclusion of VCA data means that, where possible, vehicles built prior to the introduction of Euro 4 that do meet the required standard are automatically recognised as compliant. All petrol cars first registered in the UK from 1 January 2006 and all diesel cars registered after 1 September 2015 are automatically ULEZ compliant. If an owner of a vehicle registered before these dates believes that their vehicle meets the ULEZ standard and they want to avoid paying a charge, they should contact us and provide us with a copy of the vehicle's V5C or non-UK equivalent and a letter from the vehicle manufacturer stating the vehicle's Euro standard or a Certificate of Conformity. In terms of your specific questions. ULEZ fines issued which are subsequently challenged on Grounds three - no penalty charge payable - stratified into those accepted and rejected, and with the comments provided for the appeal. While we do record the reason why we accept or reject a representation we do not record the specific statutory ground on which it is submitted and therefore do not hold this information. ULEZ fines appealed on the basis the individual thought the car was compliant, stratified into those accepted and rejected, and with the comments provided for the appeal. ULEZ fines appealed on the basis the individual was not aware that they entered the ULEZ (including those who used diversionary routes), stratified into those accepted and rejected, and with the comments provided for the appeal. ULEZ fines appealed on none of the six grounds of challenge on the basis of any variation of "not knowing that they had to pay the charge" either because they did not think that they entered the zone or because they believed that their car was exempt, stratified into those accepted and rejected, and with the comments provided for the appeal. For journeys between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 inclusive, 1,610,644 ULEZ PCNs were issued to 408,776 unique vehicles. 234,530 representations were received in total. Of these 157,490 were accepted, 53,974 rejected and 23,066 remain open and are in the process of being reviewed or awaiting further evidence. The table below details the number of representations accepted and rejected for the reasons outlined in your request for penalties issued between 1 January and 31 December 2023. As outlined above we do exercise discretion and consider mitigating circumstances when dealing with representations. This can result in representation being accepted despite the penalty being correctly issued. While not specifically recorded some representations on the grounds referred to in the table may have been accepted under the wider reason of mitigating circumstances. It should be noted that on 29 August 2023 the ULEZ was expanded to cover all London boroughs. Following the launch of the expansion, between 29 August and 25 September 2023, warning notices were issued to owners of non-compliant vehicles who had not paid the ULEZ charge after driving in the zone. Warning notices were issued to ensure the correct action was taken in the future and to allow for any genuine mistakes that may have occurred. Since 26 September 2023, PCNs have been issued for contraventions.
Representation Reason
Representations Accepted
Representations Rejected
Vehicle is compliant
41,762
7523
Forced / diverted into the ULEZ
258
806
Unaware of scheme and how it operates
0
10,794
Entered the zone unintentionally
0
115
Believed charge was not due
0
39
As we would need to access every representation to review the comments provided for the appeal, we are applying Regulation 12(4)(b) as we believe that this part of your request is ‘manifestly unreasonable’ because providing the information you have requested would impose unreasonable costs on us and require an unreasonable diversion of resources. The use of this exception is subject to a public interest test, which requires us to consider whether the public interest in applying the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. We recognise that the release of information would promote accountability and transparency in public services and may help address your particular concerns about this issue. However, the time it would take to provide the information you have requested would divert a disproportionate amount of our resources from its core functions and as there is already a large amount of data already published on the ULEZ, on balance we consider that the public interest currently favours the use of the exception. In addition: the number of requests made to TFL either through email, phone, or letter, inquiring if an outstanding ULEZ charge is due on a vehicle. We do not record enquiries made for this reason. We would need to access every enquiry and review whether this was the reason for the customer contacting us. Therefore we are also refusing this part of your request under Regulation 12(4)(b) as detailed above. Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal. Yours sincerely Gemma Jacob Senior FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
