Edinburgh City Council leader branded 'clueless' after missing out on £800,000 in LEZ fines

Edinburgh Council’s leader has been branded ‘clueless’ as it was revealed the city has lost out on over £800,000 from the city’s low emission zone in its first nine months running.

A report published by the council shows that the city missed out on almost half of its possible LEZ income between June 2024 and March 2025 due to incorrect DVLA recordkeeping.

SNP councillor Danny Aston asked the council’s leader at Thursday’s full council meeting if she would write to the UK transport secretary to get the sum reimbursed.

While responding, council leader and Labour councillor Jane Meagher appeared unaware of the revenue the city had missed out on.

She continued to say: “[I have no] intention of writing about something which I think might be based on a false premise.”

SNP councillor Danny Aston said the council leader seemed to be ‘clueless’ on the loss, and that the fact she was unaware of it was ‘astonishing’.

The council’s transport boss replied to an inquiry by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, saying the city is ‘proud’ of the progress made since LEZ enforcement began.

Councillor Stephen Jenkinson also acknowledged that there had been issues with vehicles being incorrectly registered with the DVLA

He added that there had been a small number of drivers avoiding paying PCNs issued by the council.

Only vehicles which meet certain emissions standards, along with a limited number of other exempted vehicles, are allowed to enter the LEZ.

But over one in three non-compliant and non-exempt vehicles entering the zone could not be charged at all.

This was due to non-existent or incorrect vehicle keeper data being lodged with the DVLA, and due to vehicles being found to be compliant after being flagged by automated systems.

The report, published this month, stated the city had brought in £1,050,780 from penalty charges during the nine eight months of the scheme being operational.

In addition, it stated that 70% of penalty charge notices issued for LEZ violations had been paid, and that the city had begun debt recovery operations for unpaid fees.

After payments to operate the scheme, the council has been left with almost £800,000 to invest in clean air and other projects.

This is set to include the council’s long-delayed 7-7-7 bus lane scheme, which will see some bus lanes operate 12 hours a day, seven days per week.

Lothian Buses’ 44 route is expected to be the first route to trial the scheme, with operations possibly running by the end of this month.

The report stated that almost 13,000 cases were in the debt recovery system at time of publication, with over 9,700 amid a debt recovery process.

A total of 3,074 challenges to PCNs issued related to the LEZ were made, with 2,773 charges being reversed.

The main reasons for reversals were situations where vehicles had a blue badge but had not applied for an exemption, and those where DVLA information about the vehicle was wrong.

Other reasons included vehicles being forced into the LEZ due to roadworks, and events where the council elected to not pursue the debt.

Cllr Aston said: “It’s astonishing that the Council Leader seemed to be completely clueless on what happened to £800,000.

“Edinburgh is out of pocket for more than £800,000 due to the sloppiness and incompetence of a UK government agency. So it’s only right that the UK government reimburses Edinburgh for this.”

Cllr Jenkinson said: “There are a low number of unpaid LEZ fines.

“This can be for a number of reasons, including from drivers whose vehicles are incorrectly registered with the DVLA, making it more challenging to collect fines, and a low number deliberately evading payment.

“PCNs for LEZ contraventions are set out in national legislation, and we actively pursue unpaid fines using all appropriate measures. Any unpaid debt is passed on to sheriff officers.”

He also said 77% of PCNs for breaches of the LEZ were paid on time at time of publication, which a council spokesperson said included data that was not covered by the report’s time period.