Six months on, Ulez is a disaster – but could Sadiq Khan have more ‘green’ plans for London?

Ulez
Ulez

It has been six months since London’s “Ultra Low Emission Zone” expanded into the suburbs and respect for the scheme has never been lower. Four-figure fines handed to innocent motorists have undermined public support, while the disputed outcome of the scheme has earned Transport for London (TfL) a rebuke from advertising regulators. People are having their cars seized despite never driving to London, while scientists who query TfL’s claims are “silenced” for questioning the orthodoxy. All told, it’s not a good look for TfL or Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London.

But that won’t stop either from pressing forward with new schemes. TfL has branded Ulez a success despite not-inconsiderable criticism, and with tens of millions of pounds generated by the scheme over the past six months, it’s probably a harbinger of ideas to come – both in London and elsewhere in the UK. Regional governments across the country have observed the rollout (and revenues) from Ulez and are considering similar fine- and charge-based “emissions” schemes.

At best, Ulez has been badly implemented, though a more cynical observer would describe it as rotten from the start. Many anti-Ulez activists have been conspiracy-driven extremists (the so-called Blade Runners continue to fell enforcement cameras with angle grinders on a nightly basis) but since the beginning, there have also been clear, rational voices speaking out against the scheme. Even the most staunch pro-Ulez supporter might now reasonably conclude that the “antis” had a point, and that fine-based enforcement of a controversial idea was doomed to failure and public anger.

Indeed, after 184 days of near-constant controversy, today’s injustice is a £700 fine given to a compliant driver. After signing up to TfL’s auto-pay system, the hapless motorist found that the authority had taken far more money than it was owed. You’d think that an organisation such as Transport for London would return the money swiftly, but (as has been the case in a number of similar situations) the government body didn’t actually reimburse its victim until The Guardian intervened.

The Left-wing press, which at the start ardently supported Ulez, has become increasingly critical of the programme as its more money-grabbing colours have become apparent. In fact, The Guardian’s consumer affairs writers have responded to several upsetting stories from the paper’s understandably livid readers – one had his car unfairly seized by TfL, which exercised its draconian powers and refused to hand back the vehicle even after being presented with evidence of innocence. Another received threats from bailiffs despite paying the charge. In both cases TfL rolled over when exposed to the media – it has since stated that, with these and the £700 complainant, it “apologises for any distress caused” – but it’s impossible to tell how many victims have had different experiences without help from prominent journalists.

It isn’t just Londoners or even British people who are being stung by the new scheme. Many European motorists have been handed extortionately high fines – some as high as £11,000 – due to errors in their paperwork. These drivers (usually of compliant vehicles) neglected to add their information to a data portal run by the enforcement agency Euro Parking Collection, an omission that TfL seems to think merits a five-figure financial penalty.

It’s little wonder that TfL is at the centre of legal action from car and lorry drivers across Europe, whose visits to the UK have been followed (months later) with sketchy letters demanding thousands in fines. Michael Freilich, the Belgian MP, has been a prominent advocate for Europeans caught out.

“People are being tricked, in my opinion,” Freilich told The Telegraph. “Duped.

“They’re being charged for driving compliant vehicles. People are being fined for driving the right cars that meet the requirements of the schemes – they’re being fined £400 or £500 for driving these compliant cars per day.

“Of course this undermines support for the scheme.”

Claims by Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, that Ulez has had a positive impact have been undermined by numerous setbacks
Claims by Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, that Ulez has had a positive impact have been undermined by numerous setbacks - Stefan Rousseau/PA

Freilich has led the charge against the enormous penalties being handed out to drivers who haven’t filled in paperwork for the London Ulez. Travellers from abroad are expected to fill in a form 10 days ahead of their arrival, but TfL made little effort to inform anyone of this obscure rule and consequently drivers – including many from Freilich’s constituency – find out about the rule only when they’re punished for breaking it, even if their car was in fact suitably low-emission. And, as Freilich describes, the punishment seems arbitrary, huge and impossible to appeal.

“There’s no warning,” he says. “They wait between six and 24 months to send a fine, which says that the 28 days to appeal has gone, and so the fine has been tripled. You can’t call up.

“I’ve spoken to lots of people who have just paid the fine,” says Freilich. “For some people it’s a lot of money, and they have to put that money away for a long time. The worst is people who have come with a rental car. Ulez wants them to register their vehicle 10 days before they come, but even if they’re aware of this rule, they don’t know what number plate they’ll have. Many people have paid £2,000 or £3,000 fines. These people are never coming back.”

It would be embarrassing for London to become one of those unfriendly, unwelcoming cities where travellers must remain vigilant against state-tolerated scams.

Ulez has led to several protests by unhappy motorists
Ulez has led to several protests by unhappy motorists - Toby Melville/Reuters

In its defence, TfL says that the high fines relate to “multiple infringements” that you can appeal online and that “the Ulez is not about making money and will not generate a surplus in the next few years as compliance increases. Any net revenue received from the scheme is reinvested into running and improving London’s transport network, walking and cycling routes, and funding to London’s boroughs so they can improve their roads.”

But the real reputational damage is to green policies and programmes in general. Because the only justifications put forward for the enormous fines, unjust penalties and Kafkaesque bureaucracy experienced by victims have been some general excuses about air quality and justice.

“We are proud to help protect the health and safety of Londoners by helping reduce vehicle emissions and their impact on air quality,” a director of Euro Parking Collection, the agency at the centre of Freilich’s allegations, told The Telegraph. “We believe that all drivers should be subject to the same traffic rules regardless of their country of origin or where their vehicle is registered.”

Which all sounds very worthy, and reflects a wider trend of justifying heavy-handed financial penalties with eco-waffle. But it’s not clear how effective the low-emission zone has been in doing what it says on the tin – and TfL hasn’t exactly been straightforward about it.

Earlier this month, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld complaints against TfL and the Greater London Authority (GLA) about pro-Ulez adverts being broadcast on the radio, which ASA regulators said were likely to be misleading – a move that Tim Donovan, the BBC political editor, described as “clear censure”. Three other complaints were not upheld.

Separately, Shirley Rodrigues, Sadiq Khan’s deputy for environment and energy, complained to Imperial College London scientists last year that she was “really disappointed” that they had published research that undermined the mayor’s relentlessly positive assessment of Ulez’s impact.

Both Ulez and Sadiq Khan have come under considerable fire since the scheme was approved
Both Ulez and Sadiq Khan have come under considerable fire since the scheme was approved - Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images Europe

TfL, on the other hand, says that “it is commonplace for academic experts to disagree with how other academic studies are interpreted, as was the case here… We are disappointed that the Advertising Standards Authority has upheld the complaints made against some of our advertisements. We believe that the information, which was based on robust scientific evidence, was clearly presented. The ASA did not challenge the science. Its ruling centres around a minor technical point in some ads. We will take this into account when drafting the wording and referencing in any future adverts.”

While the low-emission zone is understood to bring moderate benefits to some areas of air pollution, and negligible but measurable benefits in others, there is also an information war raging in parallel which means the public now takes official claims with a pinch of salt.

Dirty tricks are undermining Ulez and Britain’s faith in green policies. London deserves clean air, but that doesn’t justify the clear problems with the implementation of its clean-air policies. As London’s authorities mull over future, stricter plans, and other cities in the UK and around the world observe and mimic each other’s environmental schemes, lessons must be learnt from the cack-handed, counterproductive and disreputable way that London’s Ulez has been brought about.

What’s on the horizon for UK drivers?

Ulez
Ulez

1. A rise in emissions standards

To be compliant, petrol cars must meet Euro 4 emission standards (built after 2005) and diesel cars must meet Euro 6 (post-2014). From next year, all new cars will be built to Euro 7 standards – it’s likely that low-emission zones will require higher emission standards for drivers to be exempt from the charges. Drivers of Euro 4 petrol cars that are currently permitted in the zone will probably need to upgrade their vehicles at some point – though TfL has no plans to do so yet, and changes would be subject to public consultation.

2. SUV tax

The citizens of Paris have voted to introduce additional parking charges for sport utility vehicle (SUV) drivers, albeit in a very limited way – the rules will apply only to out-of-towners, and the definition of SUV will be based on mass rather than volume. As such, many zero-emission electric vehicles will incur the high prices, while old-fashioned petrol SUVs will be exempt. Sadiq Khan expressed interest in the French scheme, suggesting that he would copy it if it works, though the mayor doesn’t have the authority to do so in London. Instead, this would be the responsibility of borough councils.

3. Charge increases

The congestion charge (separate to Ulez) was £5 a day when it was introduced; over the past 20 years, it has tripled, and also been joined by additional fees for drivers of the least desirable vehicles. The likelihood of the Ulez charge standing at £12.50 indefinitely seems slim and while TfL has yet to announce plans to increase it, it would be safe to assume this odd number will be rounded up. The fines for non-payment increased last year, from £160 to £180 (over two days’ pay for a minimum-wage worker), reduced to £90 if paid within two weeks. Expect these numbers to rise.

4. Concerns over tyre and brake emissions 

Increasing concern about particle emissions other than those emanating from exhausts will be a key policy battleground in the coming years, partly due to improved understanding of these previously overlooked hazards, and partly because electric cars don’t have exhausts anyway. Euro 7 regulations will include tyre and brake particulate emissions for the first time, and it’s likely that future Ulez-style schemes will take these into account. While electric cars are considered zero-emission, this is an oversimplification that will probably be legislated against as battery-powered vehicles become the norm.

5. New zones

Though TfL says it “has no plans to progress the introduction of new zero-emission zones or change the Ulez standards”, London’s Ulez has, for all its considerable flaws, been one of the world’s largest and most prominent emissions schemes. Similar initiatives have popped up all over the world and while many local authorities are understandably reluctant to implement such divisive (and vote-losing) measures, the country’s most polluted areas will be compelled to improve their air quality at some point. Expect the gradual rollout of low- and zero-emission zones across the rest of the UK; in 11 years, new petrol and diesel cars will be banned from sale altogether.

6. Cars banned

London is a busy place with narrow, congested streets. Sadiq Khan’s vision for zero deaths or serious injuries by the year 2041 – just 17 years away – is an unviable dream with even the cleanest of vehicles driving on the city’s streets. Pedestrian zones are emerging in boroughs all over London, while plans to eliminate motor vehicles from places such as Oxford Street continue apace. If Khan and his successors are serious about zero road deaths or serious injuries by 2041, the only realistic approach will be to ban cars from the city’s streets altogether – a future we might experience sooner than we think.