RICHARD MANSFIELD2
Active member
I have sent what they have asked for already.
ULEZ Compliant?
- Thread starter YOG
- Start date
Help Support ProjectPuma:
I originally sent only the CoC as there was no practical purpose for the V5C as far as I could see (though I now assume it's the address they are looking for).
I got told to send the V5C. So I did, by return email, and nothing further happened for about two weeks.
So I just started the application again, with both docs and they approved it in a couple of days. But mine is the lower 0.033
My point though is that they don't seem capable of linking messages back to the original submissions. Whether that is a flawed system or incompetent/lazy staff I can't say, but that seems to be a recurring problem.
You are probably best to try replying again politely, before resorting to a complaint. Or else resubmitting from scratch with a cover letter covering all of your points (though no guarantee they'll read it of course).
RICHARD MANSFIELD2
Active member
Hi.
I wrote to them and listed all of their references for the correspondence I have sent to them. For every communication they issue a fresh corres. number. They obviously do not read any of the letters. I received a reply that they need the copies of the V5 and COC. to start the whole thing again. Does my brain in. incompetence or what, the public are paying for what appears to be nothing more than a revenue generating quango.
I wrote to them and listed all of their references for the correspondence I have sent to them. For every communication they issue a fresh corres. number. They obviously do not read any of the letters. I received a reply that they need the copies of the V5 and COC. to start the whole thing again. Does my brain in. incompetence or what, the public are paying for what appears to be nothing more than a revenue generating quango.
Maybe it's time to contact the press 
.
They love to complain about ULEZ and this would be a new angle for them.
And it could open the floodgates for people that TfL have charged but shouldn't have.
I only lost £37.50 in charges before I got the exemption (which they won't refund according to their website) but I imagine many people may have paid much more. not to mention the people who needlessly sold or scrapped their car.
I wasn't opposed to ULEZ per se, but I am opposed to incompetence and unfair application.
.They love to complain about ULEZ and this would be a new angle for them.
And it could open the floodgates for people that TfL have charged but shouldn't have.
I only lost £37.50 in charges before I got the exemption (which they won't refund according to their website) but I imagine many people may have paid much more. not to mention the people who needlessly sold or scrapped their car.
I wasn't opposed to ULEZ per se, but I am opposed to incompetence and unfair application.
For me also. I’m compliant now but the injustice of the situation is just wrong and TFL must know this whatever is being passed off as incompetence. I’m willing to give whatever support anyone needs on this because it’s just the right thing to do.Maybe it's time to contact the press
They love to complain about ULEZ and this would be a new angle for them.
And it could open the floodgates for people that TfL have charged but shouldn't have.
I only lost £37.50 in charges before I got the exemption (which they won't refund according to their website) but I imagine many people may have paid much more. not to mention the people who needlessly sold or scrapped their car.
I wasn't opposed to ULEZ per se, but I am opposed to incompetence and unfair application.
When I got the final approval, I responded to ask if they would now be writing to all people with the same vehicle or with emissions at the same level to advise them that they are in fact compliant, and also would they be updating DVLAs data. Not surprisingly I didn’t get a response, but surely the right thing to do.
There is another thing that I actually believe is possibly beyond enforceable law let alone the moral decency of the situation and that is if TFL actually don’t have data on many vehicles (why they ask us to get COC) can they really legally enforce a fine on the mere assumption that a vehicle is non-complaint? So not just about misinterpreting the application of the standard but also missing data. I’m not a lawyer but in the background I am indeed raising this point elsewhere.
@RICHARD MANSFIELD2 and anyone else in this situation, keep going! Don’t give in
regarding 'missing data', in their original response to me, TfL said they use the DVSA database to determine whether your car is compliant, rather than having one of their own. But the DVSA website that covers all of the other LEZs only states that TfL has its own scheme and disassociates itself from that.
DVSA covers the other low emissions schemes collectively outside of London - it’s them you register with in order to be compliant for all schemes together outside London.
DVLA data is actually on their website as is a basic lookup function of emissions data. As I understand it, TFL use DVLA data but their encouragement to you to update DVSA may be to do with registering for the other low emission schemes around the country. Whether DVSA also use the same DVLA data I don’t know.
Are you sure the letter says TFL use DVSA data to determine compliance? Mine says the same wording but DVLA.
Given that you have been granted compliance by TfL with a NOx of 0.083, if you input your vehicle registration into the checker on the government website, does it show that you're compliant in all Clean Air Zones outside London (including Bristol and Birmingham)? If so, has this happened automatically since TfL granted you Ulez compliance or have you had to go through the same weary process (2 decimal places vs. 3 decimal places) with DVLA/DVSA?
https://vehiclecheck.drive-clean-air-zone.service.gov.uk/vehicle_checkers/enter_details
You're right that it says DVLA:
"We should also like to clarify that as the details currently held by the DVLA reflect that your vehicle is not compliant,
updating this vehicles compliance record directly with DVLA, so that ULEZ Compliance Registration with us is not
required is also an option for you.
Once DVLA certfies compliance status of your vehicle, it is automatically registered with us with no input from yourself."
However, unless you know differently, and can fully explain the distinction in practice between DVSA and DVLA which I'll admit I don't understand, I think the only acceptable option is to use the DVSA submission process to update your record, which presumably (though I've not checked) updates the DVLA data (I don't think there is a different process).
I'd be amazed if TfL would, or could, submit an update to DVLA/DVSA on anyone's behalf, so I think it will always be wise to directly inform DVSA as well as TfL. Thankfully, DVSA seem far more efficient, recognised my response to an email saying I'd not provided enough info, and can then process and update records within a day
I haven’t got to it yet but currently that is also my understanding, that the way to register for schemes outside London is to register with DVSA.
I felt that the whole update DVLA thing from TFL was them passing the buck where clearly the data is right here in front of them (V5C and COC) proving compliance so I stuck to the TFL route for ULEZ. I mean why even ask for that information in the first place to then tell you to go update DVLA instead.
Be interested to see if anyone took their advice on trying to update DVLA, and what that process is, TFL don’t tell you how to do it in any case.
I’m not sure how they synch the data by license plate but the DVLA emissions data on their website is by model. You can’t use it to look up specific numbers missions for your car by license plate, you have to search your model of car. There are models that don’t have complete emissions data.
My point on the dsta gaps is that surely to enforce a fine tbere has to be evidence that a vehicle is not compliant, not just an assumption, in which case it is in TFLs interests to have complete data sets on all vehicles. So when I provide my COC and V5C, and am certified compliant, you’d think it important for them to synch with DVLA to update that that model of car is indeed compliant. If I scrapped my vehicle on incorrect advice by TFL because of gaps in data in the data set they use from DVLA, could there be a liability issue especially when there absolutely is evidence that the same models have been previously declared compliant for other drivers as is the case here.
I haven’t yet been through the DVSA process and right now my vehicle shows as having to pay in Bristol and Birmingham but not any of the others.
I suspect there’s been no change to any data and that my vehicle was already compliant outside of Bristol and Birmingham before I registered with TFL in London. So I still need to update DVSA.
I had the same results before I registered with DVSA, so that is not influenced by TfL. I applied for DVSA update while waiting for TfL to respond to my email back to them, so my DVSA update (to now be OK everywhere) happened first and independently of anything at TfL. I wondered whether updating DVSA would resolve TfL, as their letter suggests (if you assume they mean DVSA rather than DVLA, but who knows) but after a week of nothing I decided not to wait and see and just reapplied to TfL from scratch. That worked, but I can't say whether updating DVSA first had any influence on that or it was simply that I submitted the correct documents in one go and TfL just did what they should have done in the first place.
Their process is clear as mud, but it is obvious that they are not managing it well.
Regarding comments about TfL proactively applying a decision on behalf of all Pumas, I can see why they wouldn't (and perhaps shouldn't) do that, even though it is annoying:
Given that each vehicle has its own CoC, rather than there being a single overarching type certificate, the implication is that it could vary between individual vehicles. It certainly varies between vehicle variants.
If I'm not mistaken, for Euro 4 vehicles, the individual vehicle was tested and certified as compliant during the manufacture/pre-sale process and since it was a legal requirement to be able to sell it, it is safe to assume vehicles are compliant without needing the revert to the certificate (though I also wonder if all Euro 4 or later vehicles do actually have this data logged with DVSA anyway as part of the certification process). For earlier vehicles like ours, where there was no Euro 4 process, the data will never have been recorded centrally and no assumption of compliance could safely be made, since there was no obligation at the time and any individual car might vary for whatever reason.
If this is correct, then the fairest thing for TfL to do would be to publish a list of makes/models that might be able to show compliance so that people don't just take the default of non-compliance as definitive (which I too did for several months until I started searching for ideas to modify to achieve compliance and found some of the threads on here). Plus of course to sort out its process for actually assessing the submissions.
Yes, Bristol and Birmingham are the only two zones (Class D) where cars are subject to emission standards.
I think the fact that your vehicle has a 0.033 NOx meant that you wouldn’t have needed the hassle others have had with the two decimal argument, so likely the reason you were approved with relatively little fuss. Rather than the DVSA process having any bearing on the TFL process.
That may well be.
But given their statement in the letters, it would certainly seem sensible to me that anybody who hasn't yet applied should try applying to DVSA first. That took minimal effort, since it's the same docs as for ULEZ, and it only took 24 hours. And if what TfL suggests is correct, then this decimal place nonsense might be avoided. Must be worth a try.
Per the below article from The Daily Mail (Via MSN), the ULEZ scheme is managed by Capita who also 'provide and operate support services to include: validating potential contraventions before raising penalty charges for non-compliance'. They are also responsible for running a contact centre that will deal with payments, 'queries, representations and appeals'.
From this I would assume that all the exemption queries and barely intelligible responses come from Capita.
So probably best to ignore the "TFL" appeals and go straight to the external adjudicators.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news...n&cvid=b2d4c8e3ec9f4278bf1de97b40548397&ei=30
From this I would assume that all the exemption queries and barely intelligible responses come from Capita.
So probably best to ignore the "TFL" appeals and go straight to the external adjudicators.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news...n&cvid=b2d4c8e3ec9f4278bf1de97b40548397&ei=30
Oh Gawd, Crapita, so incredibly contemptible.
Good find.
The article says below which I think infers that that they will only be involved in PCN appeals not ULEZ status appeals.
Capita 'will provide and operate support services to include: validating potential contraventions before raising penalty charges for non-compliance'. They are also responsible for running a contact centre that will deal with payments, 'queries, representations and appeals'.
