Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them

Letter from The Mayor of London. ULEZ.

I can add a little enlightenment here from Spain.

At the beginning of this year motorists were advised they should purchase an 'emission sticker' for €5.00, that would remind you when it was OK for you to drive into an emission controlled 'city', the rule is active but as of yet not being policed.

So all electric you get an 'A', hybrid gets you a 'B' and all but the least technical of cars gets a 'C', anything remotely old my 80 for example does not get a sticker at all! :(

At present the plan is simple enough, as you approach a 'city' if 'A' & 'B' is displayed on some new overhead sign, then only an 'A' & B' vehicle can enter, a 'C' or older vehicle can go elsewhere and find a parking spot and use a bus or walk in, I also see this as a covert measure to help push the purchase pf electric vehicles.

But there has been a change already for example, as there has been a lot of resentment about this being seen as another undercover tax and many refusing to pay it, the resentment also fuelled 'pun intended' about the fact that farmers who burn off fields with enough smoke to cause a 'city' to disappear in the smoke with no interest taken by the Government! But also most people who live and work in 'cities' tend to walk or use public transport, so the word 'city' no longer applies, the change in regulations is now decided by population. So any 'cities' and non 'cities' with a population over 50,000 has come under the emissions rules! :icon-evil:

But there could be something of use here, non compliant vehicles my 80 for example 'may' be excused of the regulations under 'historical rules', there are not too many vehicles left being used on the streets every day that are over 25 years old, so their addition to the emissions is pretty much insignificant, so with this ammunition in hand, apparently historical clubs are taking this argument to the the government with a view to getting a free pass? Of course it would have to be present owners, or the second hand car market is going to boom!

EDIT: The above categories of A, B ect may be slightly wrong? I saw a vehicle in town as it went past and I swear it had an 'O' in the windscreen. I will keep an I out in the future.


Last edited:
.... I also see this as a covert measure to help push the purchase pf electric vehicles.
That is undoubtedly what it is aimed to do.

But, if it was all about saving the planet, which it clearly isn't, they would realise the carbon footprint to create such vehicles is far greater than continuing to run an existing vehicle.
Someone once said "the greenest vehicle you will ever own is the one you currently have".

I have said many times, if this was really about saving the planet consumerism would be completely halted.
The scrappage scheme only adds more confidence to the same idea - all this is to benefit the auto industry
Good morning to all you large engined Toyota fans. I have just received a letter from The Mayor of London, addressed to me in name and as the owner or a 1997, diesel, 4200cc Landcuiser. He has politely informed me that my beloved vehicle fails to meet the high standard required to drive into London. Reading between the lines, I think that he is hinting that I wont be able to drive anywhere else on this Sceptered Isle. (Only Radio 4 Churchillian Types will understand that statement and that excludes Mayor Khan).
The interesting point about this letter, it is addressed to me, a Northern, white working class, straight talking, probably a most obnoxious type of person, A Yorkshire Man, who has absolutely no intention of going to London, either in my Toyota, foot , train, bus, horse, bicycle etc. And a confused one at that. Am I on my own, singled out, upon receiving this polite letter from Mayor Khan or have others in 'Toyota Landcruiser Land' received 'The Letter'?......... Just interested.
Yes I have actually been written to twice. Both times I thought it was extremely helpful because at the time I had absolutely nothing to light the fire with. The man is just a wankhan. I live just outside the zone and work inside it. At £57.50 PW I won’t be able to afford to go to work. My 20min commute become an hour and a half on public transport. My 07 120 sails through the Mot giving me no legitimate reason to sell it. As a man in my sixties this D4D was going to see me to the grave. Looks like social security it is then.
Has anyone seen any figures on how many cars are likely to be affected? I think it's roughly diesels older than 10 years and petrol older than 19? Suspect a Land Cruiser forum doesn't give a very representative sample of anecdotes.

EDIT. OK, I googled. 700,000; a lot more than I expected.
Last edited:
Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them
Agree. My daughter works for a firm outside the excusion zone, as she did then, and then of course, the inevitable - she was inside it !
A house move for her was on the cards anyway, and duly moved outside the zones, - now they are getting closer, - again enevitable, ffs !
She will either have to pay the charge every day, change her car, change jobs, or move again miles away, but that's not a garuantee to stay outside it, as Khan can do what he likes
Oh, and Cathedral333, don't rely on social security - dinghy divers come first !
My take on this is that £12.50 isn't enough.

Clearly I'm not going to scrap the FJ80 for £2000, nor does spending let's say 60K on an equivalent vehicle make any sense to avoid an occasional £12.50 charge. So it is not enough of a penalty to invest in avoiding. I genuinely can't think of a ULEZ compliant vehicle that meets what I have with my 80... cloth, hardy, carries motorbikes easily, etc.

I only use my car to get out of London to begin with, so this won't make me use it any less. Therefore I will use it just as much as I currently do. With no change to pollution in my case, and no financial sense to change the vehicle, both these factors makes ULEZ purely a 12.50 fine that I can't do anything about.

If it were say 150 each time then it might have the effect of change. Which obviously is unpalatable, so here we are with a smaller amount only incentivising the absolute junk cars off the road that probably weren't going to hold together much longer anyway, or those unlucky enough to have bought a modern-ish diesel because they do lots of miles around London daily.

I would have thought it more reasonable to either
- give people a few days a month free (so every other weekend, or equivalent for non typical working schedules); or
- apply the fine to any vehicles reregistered to an address in ULEZ from Sept onwards.

The latter I feel would be the one that actually drives the correct behaviour - don't continue to buy and keep in London a non ULEZ vehicle, or, pay 12.50 to do so. Existing vehicles will either just age out and be replaced, or they will become classics and ULEZ will not apply anyway.

Chalking this all up to 'cost of living' but the joke will be that once I'm paying 12.50 I sure as hell will be driving old smokey through the centre of town now I've paid, instead of avoiding it like I currently do.
Last edited:
See attached


  • SmartSelect_20230808_132409_X.jpg
    245.7 KB · Views: 24
Yes, absolutely correct Karl - I believe you mentioned that earlier in the thread, apologies, it must be my age, if I can remember that too (lol)
Has anyone seen any figures on how many cars are likely to be affected? I think it's roughly diesels older than 10 years and petrol older than 19? Suspect a Land Cruiser forum doesn't give a very representative sample of anecdotes.

EDIT. OK, I googled. 700,000; a lot more than I expected.
One might hope 700,000 car drivers would all chip in and get a hit put on Kahn.......probably cheaper per head than replacing their cars by miles...
HMRC have said that self the employed using a ULEZ chargeable vehicle for BUSINESS USE ONLY journeys can claim the charge back on their yearly tax return so a bit of a loophole there for those able to exploit it.

ULEZ tax return
Last edited:

One thing that really p*sses me off about this push for electrification being forced down our throats at every opportunity is the fact they appear to be doing NOTHING about aviation. Why should anyone spend tens of £k on EV's, heat pumps, solar panels etc when anyone can fly anywhere whenever the want relatively cheaply. The pollution the big jets kick out is off the scale and the argument that they carry 100's of people at a time is pointless. If they are even remotely serious about carbon neutrality IMO they need to drastically cut the number of flights and stop people flying for leisure and that doesn't mean pricing tickets so only the rich and famous can fly, it means saying you can't do that anymore, or you can do it maybe once a year or 18months or introduce some sort of air miles restrictions. Keep commercial aviation for essential/emergency cargo and journeys. Another argument I've heard against such measures is the large job losses that would result in the flight and tourist industries, so we're told. Well, maybe but they'll just have to find other work and retrain, like the miners and the steel workers did when their industries were decimated and the powers that be didn't seem overly concerned about those workers. Of course non of this will happen any time soon.

...........RANT OVER!:laughing-rolling:

On a positive note the Zero Emission Zone planned for central London in 2025 has been scrapped....:icon-biggrin:

ZEZ Scrapped

Looks like the signage for ULEZ is not legal, and therefore you might not have to pay!