Hi there, my dad has a 2018 Ford Focus Ecoboost 140 BHP petrol. Can anyone shed any light please on why it is not ULEZ complient? 

How have you checked? try another site if possible as that car will be compliant.

1 minute ago, MarksST said:

How have you checked? try another site if possible as that car will be compliant.

Official TFL site...

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/check-your-vehicle/

After I got my mk4 Focus, I checkedif it was complient and the website said no.

I had to send a copy of my V5 to prove it was complient and then it was updated.

I think the problem with mine might have been the private plate on the car which was previously on a 2011 diesel. 

28 minutes ago, MarkRS9 said:

the problem with mine might have been the private plate on the car which was previously on a 2011 diesel. 

Sounds like a business opportunity !!

Anyone want to buy some ULEZ compliant number plates ? 🤣 

1 hour ago, unofix said:

Sounds like a business opportunity !!

Anyone want to buy some ULEZ compliant number plates ? 🤣 

I still find it odd that my 18 year old rust bucket passes the 'ULEZ' test! Feel sorry for much more modern cars that don't...

It make you wonder just how much of a giant scam the whole thing is.

Do steam powered traction engines comply ? 🤣

Yes the so called ULEZ compliancy is a total shambles and possibly a con and probably a money making cash cow. My previous car, a most beloved Lexus is250 (which for the uninitiated is a 2.5 litre V6 normally aspirated petrol superb car), was ULEZ complaint. Oh it was a 2007 car too. So basically the ULEZ debacle is a cash cow. Why some modern cars don't comply is beyond me. 

And to add. How the hell does a diesel car cost OMG so much less than an efficient petrol car is mind boggling. A work colleague who has an 11 plate Vectra estate diesel pays £30 Road tax. My 1.5 ecoboost near as damn it a 2016 car (out by a few days) costs £150. WTF. Sorry to digress. But weren't those government types meant to ban diesel blah blah blah?

OMG am I going to get another warning? 😂 at my age I don't care. I've been up 24 hours and about to have my 3rd triple Southern Comfort and ginger ale. Cheers everyone 🥃

As far as I can understand, it's the difference between discouraging cars that contribute to global warming (hence low VED for low CO2 cars pre-2017) and discouraging cars that emit NOx locally (and maybe particulates, not sure).

Not saying which is right or wrong - just trying to explain the apparent anomalies.

 

15 minutes ago, alanfp said:

As far as I can understand, it's the difference between discouraging cars that contribute to global warming (hence low VED for low CO2 cars pre-2017) and discouraging cars that emit NOx locally (and maybe particulates, not sure).

Or, the whole thing is just total B0llocks and it's all about screw1ng money out of motorists. I never originally wanted to drive diesel. I was very happy with my 2.5 V6 petrol but when the time came to replace it (back in 2010), the only engine that was available in the Jaguar XF was a 3.0 diesel

10 hours ago, tazzman600 said:

Yes the so called ULEZ compliancy is a total shambles and possibly a con and probably a money making cash cow.

Great point, surprised it hasn't been made before LOL 😂

 

10 hours ago, unofix said:

.. the only engine that was available in the Jaguar XF was a 3.0 diesel

That's because the government of the day (they're all rubbish!), proclaimed diesel as the fuel of the future, it would save the planet, they subsidised new car sales, then when critical mass of diesel sales reached, they increased fuel tax to make it more expensive than petrol.

Anyone that trusts the government to stick their nose into our personal transport has serious judgement issues. They always know nothing, are totally out of their depth, and have a history of catastrophic errors...

Government could have so easily done away with all the ulez complaints if they wanted to, but for for political reasons they haven't

Simple thing would have been to gradually over the last 10 years or so stiffen the emissions rule of the MOT, and made virtually every car in the UK ULEZ/Manchester/Bristol's Clean Air Zone compliant.

 

Personally I have no issues as my 2018 Focus Mk4 1.5 diesel is complainant in all areas, give it a month or so when 90% of Londoners realize it doesn't effect them and the moaning will quite down .

2 hours ago, Mark-UK said:

Government could have so easily done away with all the ulez complaints if they wanted to, but for for political reasons they haven't

Simple thing would have been to gradually over the last 10 years or so stiffen the emissions rule of the MOT, and made virtually every car in the UK ULEZ/Manchester/Bristol's Clean Air Zone compliant.

 

Personally I have no issues as my 2018 Focus Mk4 1.5 diesel is complainant in all areas, give it a month or so when 90% of Londoners realize it doesn't effect them and the moaning will quite down .

The government can’t stop what the mayor has done.

ulez compliance is based on the car’s emissions when it was tested at the factory, tightening MoT emissions rules wouldn’t make a car that was made with higher emissions then, comply now.

it doesn’t effect just Londoners, the 10% should just go F themselves then? That 10% is 260000 vehicles registered in London. 

 

Like I said, at next year's mayoral elections, Londoners will have a choice of candidates that will either stop the ULEZ expansion, or dismantle the whole ULEZ system altogether, should be interesting.

2 hours ago, StephenFord said:

Like I said, at next year's mayoral elections, Londoners will have a choice of candidates that will either stop the ULEZ expansion, or dismantle the whole ULEZ system altogether, should be interesting.

Not sure about that. 

ULEZ was a Johnson (Tory) Scheme, the expansion was encouraged  by Grant Shapps and the DfT, and accelerated by Khan (Labour)

The conservative are now against it as a by-election political move, not for any real health or economic reasons.

Come the next Mayoral elections when the amount of money generated is properly known, no candidate of any party is going to give up that money, also I'm pretty sure there is a legal duty to have cleaner air in cities.

23 minutes ago, Mark-UK said:

Not sure about that. 

ULEZ was a Johnson (Tory) Scheme, the expansion was encouraged  by Grant Shapps and the DfT, and accelerated by Khan (Labour)

The conservative are now against it as a by-election political move, not for any real health or economic reasons.

Come the next Mayoral elections when the amount of money generated is properly known, no candidate of any party is going to give up that money, also I'm pretty sure there is a legal duty to have cleaner air in cities.

When did, Orpington, Hayes, Romford, Enfield become a city? The city of London does not stretch out to the M25.

If it was just for the city of London it would cover just 1.12 sq mi  and around 9,00 people, yeah I did say cities, but the legal duty of clean air actually covers everywhere in the UK (Manchester is the worst place for air quality I believe)

12 hours ago, MarksST said:

When did, Orpington, Hayes, Romford, Enfield become a city?

That's an easy one - 1st April 1965.

13 minutes ago, alanfp said:

That's an easy one - 1st April 1965.

Greater London isn’t a city.

On 9/5/2023 at 10:50 AM, Mark-UK said:

Not sure about that.

Howard Cox, founder of FairFuel UK is standing as mayoral candidate on a ticket of disbanding ULEZ in it's entirety...