Watchdog rules Ulez adverts made misleading London pollution claims

Advertising Standards Authority says TfL based claim on calculating difference between current air quality measurements and 'non-Ulez scenario'

Vehicles pass by a sign indicating the new boundary of the LEZ and ULEZ expansion in London, England. Getty Images

A UK watchdog has ruled that adverts for the expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) made misleading claims about pollution levels across the capital and inside cars.

Claims made by Transport for London (TfL) that levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) had reduced by about half as a result of the scheme were not based on measurements of air quality taken before and after it was implemented, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said.

Radio listeners were likely to be misled because TfL based its claim on calculating the difference between current air quality measurements and a “non-Ulez scenario”, the ASA found.

The ASA also upheld complaints about claims in a second TfL ad that most deaths related to air pollution “actually” occurred in outer London, when this was in fact based on modelled estimates.

The ASA said the ad was likely to mislead listeners because it did not explain the basis of the claim.

In a separate ruling, the ASA found a claim made in a radio ad by the Greater London Authority that “according to research, one of the most polluted places in London is inside your car” was misleading.

The ASA said evidence provided by the GLA did establish that car users were exposed to air pollution when inside their vehicle and that it could be higher than when using other forms of transport.

However, the GLA had not directly compared pollution inside a car in London with other locations around the city, meaning it had not been adequately substantiated and was likely to mislead listeners.

The ASA, which received a total of 504 complaints about six TfL ads for Ulez and 38 complaints about the GLA ad – only some of which were upheld – stressed that it was not its role to rule on the validity of Ulez, but rather to assess whether claims made in the ads were presented alongside robust evidence.

The watchdog has told both TfL and the GLA to ensure that claims relate to relevant evidence more closely in future.

Classic car owners affected by the Ulez expansion – in pictures

• 

  Trevor Manlow, 53, a motorcycle dealer in Hillingdon, West London, with his 2000 Harley Davidson Dyna Wide Glide. 'It makes me angry, kids see these cars and bikes on the street and at shows and smile, they love it. However, the Ulez expansion is going to kill this.' All photos: PA

• 

  Paul Tucker, 52, a vehicle bodyfitter from Northolt, West London, with his 1998 Peugeot 106 Rally. 'I feel targeted, it's just another money-making scheme and if the mayor [Sadiq Khan] was serious he'd issue a complete ban'

• 

  James Stoddart, 62, a sunbed salon owner in Mitcham, South-west London, who has a 1985 Austin Mini. 'I'm absolutely fuming, it's a joke what the mayor is doing with this expansion and what he has the power to do in far-out places such as Epsom'

• 

  Peter McGeough, 80, a retired aircraft engineer, with his 1999 Volvo V70 in Greenford, West London. 'I've had to cancel the insurance on this car and get rid of it as I just can't afford an Ulez-compliant car'

• 

  Nicholas Stone, 24, a student at Arts University Bournemouth, with his family's 1998 Mazda Demio at their home in Epsom, Surrey. 'Our family would have driven this car into the ground if it wasn't for the mayor's new Ulez expansion scheme but we're having to part with it as a lot of our daily amenities are inside the new boundary'

• 

  Karl Amos, 53, a plumbers' merchant in Hillingdon, with his 1985 Classic Mini. 'When I first built this car from the ground up, I said I'd be buried in it and I'd never thought I'd ever have to consider parting with it – it's left me heart-broken'

• 

  Laurence McGeough, 52, a vehicle technician in Greenford, West London, with his 1991 Ford Fiesta RS Turbo. "At the moment I drive this car every weekend to classic shows to meet similar owners. After August 29, I'm going to have to heavily clamp down and consider when I take it out'

• 

  Richard Moore, 53, a motorway communication engineer from Hainault, East London, with his limited edition 1996 Vauxhall Calibra Turbo 4x4, says the expansion is 'the final nail in the coffin and I am looking to relocate my family and I to outside the new boundary'

• 

  Paul Robins, 60, a part-time plumber in Biggin Hill, Kent, with his Mid-2000 B10 3.3 litre, left, and Mid-2000 BMW 530i Touring. "If TfL [Transport for London] don't respond back before August 29 and deem the car Ulez-compliant, I'll have to consider signing on for unemployment benefits and give up the work I do'

• 

  Jay McDonald, 45, a haulier in Hayes, West London, with his 1986 Mark 3 Ford Capri. 'It's a tax on the people, it won't achieve anything more than putting money in the pockets of TfL'

TfL said it was “disappointed” with the ASA’s ruling, adding that scientific analysis based on modelled scenarios and estimates was “standard practice” in the scientific community and central government.

“The ASA did not challenge the science. Its ruling centres around a minor technical point in some ads. We will take this into account when drafting the wording and referencing in any future adverts,” a spokeswoman said.

“The science is absolutely clear about the significant harm of air pollution on people’s health and that estimated premature deaths from air pollution are higher in outer London than in inner London.

“It is also clear from robust scientific assessment that the central London Ulez was key to almost halving the nitrous oxide emissions in the original Ulez area.

“The expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone is playing a crucial role in the reduction of air pollution – improving air quality for everyone in London and reducing the harms to health associated with vehicle emissions.”

A spokesman for London Mayor Sadiq Khan said: “The ASA is not challenging the science behind the advertisement, and we are confident that it contains nothing misleading. The advert went through a robust policy and industry approval process.

“Studies from global institutions have shown that exposure to air pollution, even at low levels, is very damaging to people’s health. We are satisfied with the science behind the claim and how we presented it.”