Exclusive: authorities rack up an estimated 拢1.25 million in emission and penalty charges
June 28, 2022 by Hugo Griffiths

Car changing is a big deal
Some of the organisations that set city road rules are charging and fining themselves
- Transport for London and the capital鈥檚 councils fined over 拢1m for breaking road rules
- One London council issues its own vehicles over 拢200,000 in Penalty Charge Notices
- Birmingham City Council charges itself 拢77,768 for non-compliant council vehicles entering its own Clean Air Zone
- TfL charges itself 拢16,387 for non-compliant TfL vehicles operating London鈥檚 Ultra Low Emission Zone
Driving in town can be a stressful affair, with numerous rules adding to the challenge of busy roads, and fines for breaching these rules relatively easy to incur.
Motorists may take heart, however, that Transport for London (TfL) and some of the 32 councils in charge of the capital seem incapable of avoiding these fines and charges, with a series of freedom of information requests made by carwow revealing the organisations have been charged an estimated 拢1.17 million since 2017.
Birmingham City Council, meanwhile, has charged itself 拢77,768 in fees and fines due to non-compliant council vehicles entering the city鈥檚 Clean Air Zone (CAZ) since the zone became operational in June 2021.
A total of 拢1,250,453.92 in estimated fines and charges were uncovered by carwow鈥檚 investigation, which involved asking authorities in the country鈥檚 two largest cities how many times since 2017 vehicles under their stewardship had incurred:
- Charges and penalties for entering London鈥檚 Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and Birmingham鈥檚 Clean Air Zone (CAZ) in non-compliant vehicles
- Penalty charge notices of any kind (EG bus lane and parking fines)
- Penalties for driving in Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
TfL and London councils: ULEZ charges
London鈥檚 Ultra Low Emission Zone, or ULEZ, was introduced in April 2019 and sees drivers of more polluting vehicles have to pay a daily 拢12.50 charge to enter the zone. The ULEZ originally occupied the same small central area as the Congestion Charge zone, but was expanded in October 2021 to include everywhere inside the North and South Circular roads, where it operates on a 24/7 basis. A consultation is currently ongoing on expanding the ULEZ to cover Greater London.
The ULEZ is administered by Transport for London (TfL), and while the organisation told us all its vehicles are registered to its 鈥楢utoPay鈥 system, meaning it had incurred no fines for entering the zone without paying, TfL had charged itself 拢16,387.50 for 1,311 instances of non-compliant vehicles entering the zone since it was introduced.
The majority (991 entries, costing 拢12,387.50) were in 2019 when the zone was first introduced, with TfL highlighting that the only non-compliant vehicle that now enters the ULEZ regularly 鈥渋s used by the London Transport Museum to occasionally move stock and items鈥.
London councils incurred higher charges, though. The Royal Borough of Greenwich was charged 拢32,300 by TfL for the 2,584 journeys its non-compliant vehicles made into the ULEZ between October 2021 (when the ULEZ expanded into the borough) and April 2022.
Greenwich explained that the supply-chain issues that have impacted new-car production had 鈥渁ffected vehicle availability and delayed new vehicle deliveries鈥 for its fleet, indicating it has had difficulty procuring ULEZ-compliant vehicles.
Ealing council, meanwhile, was charged 拢20,437.50 for the 1,635 times its non-compliant vehicles entered the ULEZ.
Some London councils, including Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Hackney told us all their vehicles were ULEZ compliant.
ULEZ fines
There is a 拢160 penalty for not paying the ULEZ, reduced to 拢80 if paid within 14 days. Every council penalised for failing to pay the ULEZ said they had paid within that time period for the reduced fine.
Brent council had been issued 23 penalties by TfL for non-compliant vehicles entering the ULEZ without the charge being paid, for a total of 拢1,840 in fines.
Barnet council was issued 16 penalties for the same, for a total of 拢1,280 in fines.
LEZ charges and fines
In addition to the ULEZ, Transport for London operates the LEZ, or Low Emission Zone. This covers a far wider area and sees large vehicles like lorries, buses and coaches charged between 拢100 and 拢300 to enter the zone, with bigger vehicles charged more.
Hillingdon council said it had paid the LEZ charge 152 times between August 2021 and April 2022, for at least 拢15,200 in charges.
The penalty for not paying the LEZ is between 拢500 and 拢2,000 depending on the vehicle, reduced to 拢250 to 拢1,000 if paid within 14 days.
Hillingdon told us it paid no more than 拢500 for the 127 LEZ penalties it received for failing to pay the LEZ, indicating a maximum total fine of 拢63,500. Enfield council, meanwhile, told us it was fined 拢500 eight times for failing to pay the LEZ, for a total of 拢4,000 in penalties.
Birmingham CAZ charges
London鈥檚 ULEZ may be the best known emission zone in the UK, but Birmingham鈥檚 CAZ, or Clean Air Zone, began operating in June 2021.
The CAZ covers all roads within the Middleway Ring Road in Birmingham and works under similar rules to London鈥檚 ULEZ, operating 24 hours a day and seeing more polluting cars, taxis and vans charged 拢8 to drive in the zone, while non-compliant buses and lorries pay 拢50.
A 拢120 penalty (reduced to 拢60 if paid within 14 days) is issued if drivers fail to pay the fee when it is due.
Birmingham City Council told us non-compliant council vehicles made 3,586 into the CAZ since June 2021, leaving the council with a bill of at least 拢28,688, and up to 拢179,300, depending on the type of vehicles in question.
The council also fined itself 818 times between October 2021 and April 2022 for failing to pay the fee, for a total of 拢49,080 in penalties, assuming the reduced rate was paid.
Other Penalty Charge Notices
The ULEZ and LEZ are just two schemes that can see drivers in London face fees or fines, with breaches of numerous other road rules seeing vehicles issued with Penalty Charge Notices, or PCNs.
PCNs can be issued for various offences including driving in a bus lane, stopping in a box junction, driving the wrong way down a one-way street or breaking parking rules.
PCN charges range from 拢130 to 拢60, but the most common charge issued by London boroughs is 拢130, with one council highlighting that 98% of the PCNs its vehicles received were at the higher rate.
We asked all organisations how much they had paid in PCNs, and while some could tell us the precise amount or an average cost, others could not; in these latter instances our calculations assume the standard fine of 拢130 was issued, although councils may have paid the reduced rate for early repayment, received lesser fines, or the PCNs may have been overturned on appeal.
Islington council told us that vehicles under its stewardship had received 2,117 PCNs from 2017 to mid-2022, the highest figure of any council responding to our request.
The vast majority of these charges (1,668) were actually issued by Islington to its own vehicles, with the council saying the average penalty charge it issued itself was 拢129, giving its own vehicles penalties equivalent to 拢215,172.
A further 449 penalties were issued to Islington council vehicles by other councils, and while Islington wasn鈥檛 able to provide an average cost for these, working on the assumption the penalties were for 拢130 represents an additional 拢58,370 in fines.
Transport for London was another hitter when it came to PCNs: TfL vehicles were issued a total of 3,223 penalties from 2017 to mid-2022, and while 615 of these were overturned on appeal, 2,607 were upheld. TfL told us the average cost of PCNs it received was 拢69, for a total of 拢179,883 since 2017.
TfL said it passes charges on to drivers if PCNs are 鈥渋ncurred because of blatant disregard of requirements鈥, with drivers responsible for PCNs costing 拢103,638 in penalties, and TfL 拢76,245.
Other notable PCN charges include:
- Vehicles leased or operated by Bromley council were issued 756 PCNs from 2017-mid 2022, for a total of 拢98,280 in penalties (assuming 拢130 each) 鈥 though the council highlighted that 鈥渇ines incurred are paid by the drivers concerned鈥
- Waltham Forest council vehicles incurred 387 PCNs from 2017 to mid 2022, for an estimated 拢50,310 in charges assuming each PCN was 拢130
- Vehicles under the stewardship of the Royal borough of Greenwich incurred 328 PCNs worth 拢42,640 assuming these were all 拢130 fines 鈥 although the council highlighted that penalties were paid by drivers, not the council, while some PCNs were successfully appealed, or cancelled by the issuing authority
- Hounslow council鈥檚 vehicles were issued 317 PCNs from 2017 to May 2022, with the council specifying that these totalled 拢24,236
We asked the authorities what the five most common offences that incurred PCNs were. Answers varied depending on the authority, but bus lane, box junction and parking infractions were common causes among many organisations.
Hackney council, for example, highlighted the following top five offences it issued to its own vehicles since April 2019:
- 352 PCNs for 鈥楩ailing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles鈥
- 107 PCNs for 鈥楶erforming a prohibited turn鈥
- 105 PCNs for a vehicle 鈥楽topped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway)鈥
- 80 PCNs for 鈥楩ailing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone鈥
- 78 PCNs for 鈥楨ntering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited鈥
Low Traffic Neighbourhood penalties
鈥楩ailing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles鈥 PCNs can be issued for a variety of reasons, but they are commonly linked to drivers breaching Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) rules.
LTNs are one of the more contentious projects deployed by local councils in recent years. These schemes see residential roads closed off to vehicles either permanently or during certain hours, with barriers or planters physically closing the roads, or cameras enforcing the rules, with PCNs issued for breaches.
LTNs have created significant division among local communities, with their proponents insisting they discourage car use, and their critics highlighting they turn leafy, well-off streets into de facto cul de sacs while pushing traffic onto major roads, increasing pollution for residents there.
Most councils either told us vehicles under their stewardship had not incurred any penalties for breaching LTN rules, or they were unable to separate such penalties from their pool of PCNs.
Islington council, however, told us its drivers had incurred 129 LTN penalties between November 2019 and 26 May 2022, although it added that this number 鈥渕ay include some PCNs issued to exempt vehicles such as refuse collection鈥.
Enfield council vehicles incurred 83 LTN penalties from September 2020 to March 2022, each costing 拢130 or 拢65 depending on if they were paid within 14 days 鈥 although costs for these were passed onto the drivers who incurred them, rather than being settled by the council.
Greenwich council reported 35 LTN PCNs from September 2020 to February 2022, while Waltham Forest told us of five.
Cyber attack limits data
An October 2020 cyber attack meant Hackney council was only able to tell us about PCNs its vehicles received between April 2019 and April 2022, but despite this restricted timeframe Hackney still lodged a total of 1,553 PCNs, for a total of up to 拢201,890 if working under the assumption each penalty was 拢130.
Council looks to change policy following our request
carwow received responses from 20 councils, but while some did not reply to our freedom of information requests within the 20-day time limit permitted, others told us their systems were not set up to allow for the interrogation of data required by our request.
One borough, however, has pledged to evaluate the way it collates data as a result of our investigation. Camden council stated that while it could not supply us with the information we asked for within a reasonable timeframe, it would consider changing how it collected such data in future. The council said:
鈥淔ollowing your request, we will look into compiling this information going forward in a central place. So 12 months of information may be available this time next year.鈥
Authorities respond to our investigation
Transport for London told us it is 鈥渃ommitted to reducing road danger and disruption in London鈥, and as such its vehicles are not exempt from road rules. The organisation said: 鈥淎ny TfL employee who receives a PCN while working is reminded of our expectation that TfL employees must comply with all laws at all times, including abiding by the rules of the road.鈥
TfL added that any money it received for PCNs it had issued are reinvested back into London鈥檚 transport network.
Birmingham City Council told us it is 鈥渋nvesting in a cleaner fleet so all vehicles operated by the council meet the emission standards of the Clean Air Zone鈥.
The council said it aims to be a net-zero city by 2030, and added that it began replacing its fleet in 2021, and will continue to do so 鈥渋n line with the fleet policy of individual services.鈥 Birmingham added that a CAZ charge is incurred by the council, this is paid for 鈥渇rom the budget of the relevant service area.鈥
The Royal Borough of Greenwich told us it 鈥減lanned to replace non-compliant vehicles ahead of the ULEZ introduction鈥, but 鈥渄ue to the pandemic鈥檚 effect on the motor industry, in terms of staffing shortages, factory closures, material shortages and price rises, timelines have had to extend to ensure service delivery for residents.
Greenwich also said that it 鈥渙perates a large fleet of vehicles and is issued with PCNs in the same way as other road users鈥. It added, though: 鈥渢hat a substantial proportion of PCNs have been successfully appealed as the use of the vehicle in the specific area was necessary for the undertaking of a statutory duty. The council also said its drivers were responsible for paying PCNs if they 鈥渁re found to have breached traffic regulations鈥.
Islington council told us its vehicles are subject to 鈥渢he same restrictions as vehicles belonging to members of the public鈥 and that it works 鈥渢o ensure that staff driving council vehicles are familiar with the relevant traffic and parking restrictions, and to ensure that these are adhered to.
Islington added: 鈥淭he council鈥檚 traffic and parking regulations help to make Islington a safer, more pleasant borough, while also supporting the council鈥檚 ambitions to make Islington a cleaner, greener, and healthier place to live.鈥
Ealing council told us it 鈥渇ully supports鈥 the expansion of the ULEZ, adding: 鈥淲e are ensuring our current fleet is replaced by electric and lower polluting vehicles as fast as possible. We have introduced 8 zero emission cars and vans, which makes up 10% of the fleet, and we are expecting to introduce a further 21 in the coming months. Completing this transition is going to take a little time, as we ensure continuity and quality of services to residents.鈥 Ealing added it is introducing 145 emission-compliant vehicles over the coming months.
A spokesperson for London Councils, which represents local authorities in the capital, told us: 鈥淏oroughs are committed to using road safety schemes and traffic reduction measures for the benefit of their residents. These figures demonstrate that when it comes to enforcement, London boroughs and their contractors are certainly not above the law.
The spokesperson said that London councils have 鈥渓arge and varied fleets covering a wide range of activities and services鈥 and also sometimes use third-party contractors. They added: 鈥淪ometimes these factors will lead to issues around compliance 鈥 for example, ageing council vehicles not yet updated to meet ULEZ standards or out-of-borough contractors being unfamiliar with local restrictions.
London Councils said that 鈥渂oroughs are working to address these issues and to reduce the number of charges in future.鈥