Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Transport for London has demanded about £1bn from several of the world’s biggest carmakers, claiming they rigged emissions data in a scheme that allowed motorists to slip into the UK capital’s clean-air zone without paying.
The High Court in London this week heard that the transport authority has made allegations of “fraud and negligence” against groups including Stellantis, BMW, Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan.
The legal battle is being fought over the Ultra Low Emission Zone, which levies a charge of £12.50 per day on cars that fail to meet air quality standards.
The scheme was introduced in 2019 and, to the chagrin of some drivers in outer boroughs, expanded to cover all of Greater London in 2023 as part of efforts by London Mayor Sadiq Khan to improve the capital’s air quality.
Details of TfL’s case have yet to be disclosed, but the court heard an outline of the claim at a preliminary hearing this week.
Lawyers for TfL said vehicles eligible for the levy entered the zone without being charged, starving the authority of revenue and undermining efforts to curb pollution.
However, TfL could face an uphill battle in bringing a successful case.
Its claim is related to a separate lawsuit brought on behalf of 1.6mn motorists over claims that carmakers installed “defeat devices” — essentially software — to manipulate tests for nitrogen oxide emissions.
The judge in that case this month ruled largely in favour of the carmakers, though she did not shut the door entirely on all the claims. Lawyers for the claimants are planning to appeal the first-stage judgment.
In the TfL case, the court was told that the body relies on Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency records, based on data provided by the manufacturers, to determine whether a particular vehicle should be subject to the charge.
The carmakers “expressly or impliedly represented” that certain diesel vehicles complied with the required standard, said Laurence Page, barrister for TfL.
“The representations were false, made dishonestly or recklessly, alternatively negligently, and caused TfL loss,” he said, adding that TfL was seeking a combined total of £1bn.
“The effect has also been to undermine TfL’s efforts to reduce levels of pollution in London.”
Carmakers have yet to file defences in the TfL claim, but in the parallel lawsuit they denied they misled regulators or consumers. They said vehicle software was entirely lawful and the emissions control systems were needed to prevent problems such as stalling or overheating in particular driving conditions.
James Cutress KC, for Stellantis, said TfL was making “very serious” allegations “with potentially far-reaching consequences” but had provided “no proper details or particulars whatsoever”.
He said the defendants were “entitled to know whether the allegations of fraud and negligence are being maintained, and if so on what basis” given the judge’s ruling in the other case.
TfL sought additional time to serve the necessary documents, but the court denied its request and said it needed to serve its claim form by October.
Source:
www.ft.com