RICHARD MANSFIELD2
Active member
ULEZ states max of 75g/kg for CO2
My Puma is 178 (Copy of certificate from Ford on the previous page).
My Puma is 178 (Copy of certificate from Ford on the previous page).
Last edited:
ULEZ Compliant?
- Thread starter YOG
- Start date
Help Support ProjectPuma:
I think you may be mistaken here...ULEZ states max of 75g/kg for CO2
My Puma is 178 (Copy of certificate from Ford on the previous page).
ULEZ requires meeting Euro 4, which comprises only (according to RAC)
Euro 4 emissions standards (petrol)
CO: 1.0g/kmTHC: 0.10g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km
You'll comply if you make the argument the earlier posting mentioned about two decimal places.
I googled the 75g and it appears to relate to discounts for Ultra Low Emission Vehicles, I suspect in the Congestion Charge zone, though I haven't made the effort to research that properly.
RICHARD MANSFIELD2
Active member
Thanks Kevin. I have started the process.
Richard.
Richard.
"Your request to register your vehicle as compliant with the Ultra Low Emission Zone has been successful."
Finally got this. With hindsight I think I made it harder for myself by not predicting how process-driven TFL would be.
First, I submitted only the CoC, not the V5c.
A few days later they emailed me to say I need to submit the V5c, so I emailed it back to them in reply.
I heard nothing for days, so meanwhile I applied and got the exemption update on DVSA within 24 hours.
Still nothing from TfL after about 2 weeks, so I decided to resubmit the application from scratch, with both documents and knowing that DVSA had changed their status (which TfL say they use, but maybe only the first time they check).
I got the approval within about a day.
So, I guess if you do things in the perfect order then it might be quick.
And finally, there is of course no mention of refunding the days they already charged me or cancelling the ones on my account (I originally set up autopay) which are due to direct debit in a couple of weeks.
I don't think I can be bothered to chase them for it, but if by chance I do get a refund automatically then I'll add a post.
Finally got this. With hindsight I think I made it harder for myself by not predicting how process-driven TFL would be.
First, I submitted only the CoC, not the V5c.
A few days later they emailed me to say I need to submit the V5c, so I emailed it back to them in reply.
I heard nothing for days, so meanwhile I applied and got the exemption update on DVSA within 24 hours.
Still nothing from TfL after about 2 weeks, so I decided to resubmit the application from scratch, with both documents and knowing that DVSA had changed their status (which TfL say they use, but maybe only the first time they check).
I got the approval within about a day.
So, I guess if you do things in the perfect order then it might be quick.
And finally, there is of course no mention of refunding the days they already charged me or cancelling the ones on my account (I originally set up autopay) which are due to direct debit in a couple of weeks.
I don't think I can be bothered to chase them for it, but if by chance I do get a refund automatically then I'll add a post.
RICHARD MANSFIELD2
Active member
Hi.
I have emailed TFL asking what the process is. I have been allocated an enquiry number. Did you have to physically post them the COC? Or was it a case of email a copy of the COC and V5? What did you do when you applied to the DVSA?
Perhaps having the experience of doing this you could do a step by step how to do guide. I think many members would find this very useful.
Regards, Richard.
I have emailed TFL asking what the process is. I have been allocated an enquiry number. Did you have to physically post them the COC? Or was it a case of email a copy of the COC and V5? What did you do when you applied to the DVSA?
Perhaps having the experience of doing this you could do a step by step how to do guide. I think many members would find this very useful.
Regards, Richard.
It's roughly the same process for each:
You use their 'checker' and it tells you you're not compliant. But somewhere in the text below is the link to complain/state that you are compliant. Use that link. Then you just answer the basic questions, and you have to create an account if it's for ULEZ, and then upload a scan/PDF of your CoC and your V5C.
There is no opportunity to make a comment or anything else. You could upload a letter I suppose, if you wanted to. But with those two documents you shouldn't need to.
If you have 0.083 you might get a rejection email and if so you would need to reply to that to make the point that it's 0.08 to 2 decimal places and therefore complies (as somebody described near the start of this thread). I didn't have to do that so can't say how long it takes. But I never got a reply to a message I sent two weeks ago so I wouldn't expect a speedy response.
@RICHARD MANSFIELD2 - I have the same vehicle as you with 0.083 NOx and had the non compliant status successfully overturned. It took a few attempts after initially having the appeal rejected.
I’m working on a step by step guide currently. Hope to have it up next week.
I’m working on a step by step guide currently. Hope to have it up next week.
RICHARD MANSFIELD2
Active member
Hi.
I have just sent off PDF of required documents. Watch this space.
Regards Richard.
I have just sent off PDF of required documents. Watch this space.
Regards Richard.
yippeekiay
Well-known member
Nice to see the more Puma getting through not paying this stealth tax instead of being scrapped.
RICHARD MANSFIELD2
Active member
The strange thing is I live 40 miles from the ULEZ near Clacton and have no need or intention of going there. I am doing this as a point of principle.
Regards Richard.
Regards Richard.
spaggybol
New member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 3
I had my Puma accepted by TFL, but noticed I would still be charged for driving in Bristol and Birmingham. So sent the same documents (V5C and CoC) to DVSA who will now update their database with the correct emissions details. Seems daft doing it twice, I wonder if I had originally sent it to DVSA it would have covered the whole of the UK.
Attachments
I hope you have more luck than me, Richard. Mine has a NOx of 0.083 and my application has been rejected by TfL four times so far. I've tried the 2 decimal place argument several times, but they just keep insisting that 0.083 is greater than 0.08. I think it's just pot luck as to which TfL blockhead replies to your application. There doesn't appear to be any consistency in their decision making. I haven't given up yet though, just regrouping.....
Don’t give up. It took me five attempts which is completely unacceptable because of course TFL know full well that they have approved others with the same vehicle as compliant.
I’ll be sharing the step by step process including the documentation and wording I used (I’m away until next week to get round to pulling that all together) but essentially the argument in the case of those with 0.083 NOx comes down to what is called standard maths rounding rules.
Since they are using two decimal place notation which is what Euro 4 is based on, then simply by standard maths rounding rules 0.083 (anything under 0.085 in fact) has to be rounded to 0.08 to two decimal places.
My challenge to TFL was to put it back to them and say that if they don’t believe that rounding rules apply (which of course they absolutely have to for those with three decimal place emissions) then to show what method they are using to otherwise define 0.083 as non compliant which of course they could not refute because maths is maths.
By any argument in any case now though, if they have approved one car with 0.083 NOx, they must approve all.
Not even politicising this, these cars are good clean runners and an utter waste to surrender to scrap.
I’ll be sharing the step by step process including the documentation and wording I used (I’m away until next week to get round to pulling that all together) but essentially the argument in the case of those with 0.083 NOx comes down to what is called standard maths rounding rules.
Since they are using two decimal place notation which is what Euro 4 is based on, then simply by standard maths rounding rules 0.083 (anything under 0.085 in fact) has to be rounded to 0.08 to two decimal places.
My challenge to TFL was to put it back to them and say that if they don’t believe that rounding rules apply (which of course they absolutely have to for those with three decimal place emissions) then to show what method they are using to otherwise define 0.083 as non compliant which of course they could not refute because maths is maths.
By any argument in any case now though, if they have approved one car with 0.083 NOx, they must approve all.
Not even politicising this, these cars are good clean runners and an utter waste to surrender to scrap.
Well done. I've been trying to dig out the original European Directive for Euro 4, showing that the NOx limit for petrol cars is quoted to 2 decimal places (whereas subsequently, Euro 5 & 6 are quoted to 3 decimal places). I've had my Puma for over 22 years - there's no way I'm scrapping it now!
I searched for that also but the only documentation I could find is TFLs own wording of the requirement (legally that matters) and other third party sites showing the standard as two decimal places with the requirement being no more than 0.08. Which in the case of 0.083 by standard maths rounding is true, noting that they could have used 0.080 if they wanted to rule out rounding anything less than 0.085. They do use three decimal places for the diesel particulate matter emissions so that also gives you basis for comparison in your favour.
Now though i would think the stronger and simpler argument is that they have approved at least one vehicle with 0.083 NOx emissions so they no longer have grounds to reject any others with the same or anything up to 0.084 based on the case presented for my approval.
Now though i would think the stronger and simpler argument is that they have approved at least one vehicle with 0.083 NOx emissions so they no longer have grounds to reject any others with the same or anything up to 0.084 based on the case presented for my approval.
RICHARD MANSFIELD2
Active member
Hi, I have had an idea, (I know we are enough trouble as it is). As we have more puma's that become compliant why don't we compile a list of registration numbers. In the future any other Puma owners who have trouble and have to go down the route of appealing all they have to do is quote the Puma's that comply and TFL have no option but go along with us.
John Woodward
Well-known member
Good Idea, but I would be concerned that they may decide that all the Puma's registration numbers supplied, could be denied ULEZ exemption.
They can’t approve then deny, they already have enough bad publicity. TFL case number would be the thing to accurately quote to TFL though rather than license plate and that keeps anything that is easily PID out of this. I’ll be happy to quote mine and will show it on the confirmation document with the rest of the step by step once I’m back next week.
John Woodward
Well-known member
One member of the Facebook group,asked to be refunded the ULEZ charges she had paid, once her car was declared ULEZ free, only to be told that her car wasn't actually ULEZ free. Unfortunately I don't know the outcome.
