Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

ULEZ comes to Heathrow on 29th August – you may need to pay £12.50 to drive to the airport

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is expanding to cover all of Greater London on 29th August.

This includes Heathrow.

From 29th August, you will need to pay £12.50 to drive your car, van or motorcycle to the airport if it is not ULEZ compliant. This is ON TOP of the £5 terminal drop-off fee charged by Heathrow or any Heathrow parking fee.

If you live in Central London and are driving to Heathrow then nothing changes, since Central London is already a ULEZ zone and your vehicle will already be ULEZ compliant (unless you have very deep pockets).

It is most likely to catch out anyone driving to Heathrow from elsewhere, especially as such people are less likely to understand the ULEZ rules.

It is easy to be confused by ULEZ at Heathrow. Take a look at the map above (click to expand).

As you can see, the stretch of the M4 which passes Heathrow is NOT included in ULEZ for some reason. However, as soon as you turn onto the Heathrow slip road, towards Bath Road, you DO need to pay.

For Terminal 5 users it is a similar situation. The M25 is outside the ULEZ zone, but as soon as you turn off towards T5 it will be triggered. If you need a hotel with car parking, you may find that you can avoid ULEZ by staying at properties such as Hilton Terminal 5, which is to the west of the M25 and outside the zone.

Which vehicles need to pay the ULEZ fee?

There is a vehicle checker, based on your car registration, on the TfL ULEZ site here.

Basically, you are compliant if your car meets the following European pollution standards:

  • Euro 3 for motorcycles, mopeds, motorised tricycles and quadricycles (L category)
  • Euro 4 (NOx) for petrol cars, vans, minibuses and other specialist vehicles
  • Euro 6 (NOx and PM) for diesel cars, vans and minibuses and other specialist vehicles

If you have a petrol vehicle under 16 years old or diesel vehicle under six years old then it is highly likely that it meets the required standards.

When does ULEZ operate?

ULEZ will operate 24 / 7 / 364. The only day you can drive a heavily polluting car to Heathrow for free will be Christmas Day.

How do you pay the ULEZ charge?

Details of how to pay the ULEZ charge can be found here.

You have until midnight on the third day after you have driven into the ULEZ zone to pay. Remember that, if you are parking overnight at Heathrow, you will also have to pay for the day you drive home. You do not pay for days your car is parked but not moved, even if parked on a road.

If you are doing ‘meet and greet’ then you MUST set up auto-pay because you will not know on which days your car is moved to/from the pick up and drop off area. This will add to the ULEZ fees for your trip.

You can find out more about the ULEZ expansion on the TfL website here.

PS. For clarity, ULEZ does not apply to Gatwick Airport. The M25 is outside the ULEZ zone so even if you are approaching Gatwick from the west you will not trigger it.

Category

General

Comments (221)

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

  • Thomas says:
    24 Aug24 August 08:12

    They should partner up with Avios! Pay your ULEZ fee with avios.

    • Dubious says:
      24 Aug24 August 08:23

      I think the anti-frequent flyer (due to environmental impact of flying) crowd might get even more upset!

      • G says:
        24 Aug24 August 09:37

        And those who have nothing to say about the environmental impact of hydrocarbons, overpopulation, meat eating and global shipping – all of which contribute way more to climate change then aviation.

  • Tom says:
    24 Aug24 August 08:12

    I’m a big petrolhead myself but so many people completely miss the point of ULEZ. It’s primarily about cleaning up the toxic air, not climate change or raising revenues. Ask any of the tens of thousands of city workers who walk around every day within in the Congestion Zone in Central London whether they want to go back to inhaling toxic fumes (and it’s still pretty grim even now with all the busses and diesel black cabbies) for the sake of other people being able to drive around conveniently. I honestly think we’ll look back on it in the same way we now view smoking indoors.

    • Yuff says:
      24 Aug24 August 09:07

      I was astonished in Las Vegas last week they allow smoking indoors still, and it stinks in the casinos………
      This is like compulsory seat belts all those years ago, the uproar about something being forced on drivers, who thinks it’s outrageous now.
      The air is much cleaner in London now.
      Love the electric vehicle comment about tyres and brake dust….hilarious of course that’s equal to a dirty diesel engine blowing out black smoke from the exhaust on a motorway…..pull the other one it’s got bells on…….

      • Al_Wiltshire says:
        24 Aug24 August 12:20

        The ‘brake dust’ comment is especially amusing given that you rarely need to use traditional brakes in an EV since regenerative braking slows you quickly enough.

      • Gordon says:
        24 Aug24 August 13:49

        @Yuff, I’m surprised you didn’t mention the stench of Cannabis, on a trip there a few months ago as soon as I came out my room in The Aria it hit me, it was awful.

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:
      24 Aug24 August 09:15

      All London Buses are Euro 6 compliant so meet the ULEZ standards.

      More than half of black cabs are electric and given the rate black cans need to be replaced either with electric or to meet Euro6 the number of non compliant ones is rapidly reducing,

    • Thomas says:
      24 Aug24 August 09:17

      correct me if I’m wrong, but any” dirty” car that pays up can continue to be” dirty” so how is that helping the clean air cause?

      • JOHN MATRIX says:
        24 Aug24 August 09:26

        1) Many drivers will ditch their dirty cars thereby helping the clean air cause
        2) Those that don’t are at least contributing to the public purse to fund the costs of air pollution

      • Reney says:
        24 Aug24 August 09:31

        because it will cost you every day so when the time comes to changing your car, or buying for the first time it will sway your decision. we saw a lot of people replacing very old cars with new electric cars. Even if you don’t change your car now you’ll make sure your next one is ULEZ compliant. So overtime it will make an impact. Policy change isn’t always expecting a big bang impact.

        • Thomas says:
          24 Aug24 August 10:30

          Ok, so don’t tax now, and give everybody a deadline. So people are warned and can save up for their next car in stead of paying taxes.The change in behaviour is allowed to take years, the tax can be implemented straight away! Funny that!

          • Londonsteve says:
            26 Aug26 August 16:55

            You have to draw the line somewhere. ULEZ has been rolling out in London since 2019, any casual bystander could see where this was going and they’ve had the last 4 years to replace their car with a compliant one. Even if someone lives in the outer suburbs of London, it would be pretty dim to buy a car that didn’t comply with clean air requirements in the centre as their movements are thereafter impeded if their car is not compliant. In my opinion it would also be pretty dim of someone to think that low emissions requirements were not coming to the whole of London in the near future so if they’ve bought a non compliant car in the last 4 years, they’ve only themselves to blame.

      • The Savage Squirrel says:
        24 Aug24 August 09:33

        Because it will very obviously drive behaviour change both in car ownership choices and daily driving choices to make a substantial difference. You must know this but are choosing to be obtuse to make a point?

      • JohnG says:
        24 Aug24 August 15:33

        I’m surprised you can’t see how having to pay £12.50 a day wouldn’t motivate someone driving a ‘dirty’ car in London remotely often to either drive less or get a car that didn’t pollute as much.

        The fact you seem to be ignorant about it doesn’t mean that the ULEZ expansion was a secret that only got revealed last month. The intention to expand the ULEZ was made public shortly after the last expansion (about 18 months before it happened) and it was confirmed with more details, including an expected date, in November (10 months before it happened). There’s your deadline being shared before they started charging.

        • Thomas says:
          24 Aug24 August 22:11

          People drive old cars often out of nessesity, not out of choice. Nobody chooses an old banger over a nice, compliant newer model. The fact you can’t grasp that simple fact means probably that you are not one of them! Introducing this costly money grabber in the middle of a cost of living crisis is scandalous. people on their knees are pushed further down the dumps……ignorant you say?

          • JohnG says:
            24 Aug24 August 22:58

            So now you’ve changed your mind and fairness for the less wealthy is your concern… very convincing.

          • Londonsteve says:
            26 Aug26 August 17:00

            There are tons of compliant cars for sale for under £2k, some of which are now 22 years old and therefore cost peanuts to buy. There are solutions for people with any size of bank balance, there’s no obligation to buy a new car. My petrolhead tip is a 2001 or newer BMW 330, from as little as 1k. For those looking for something cheap to run most Golfs, Polos, Astras, et al will be compliant from 2003. A 20 year old Astra can be bought for two Mars bars and a packet of Rizlas.

          • Londonsteve says:
            26 Aug26 August 17:03

            * most petrol cars from 2003. Diesel cars don’t comply until 2016 so any low budget buyer has to forget about driving on diesel. The fuel consumption difference of a petrol Astra versus a diesel one is small.

    • Paul says:
      24 Aug24 August 09:29

      the air on the tubes is many many multiples more toxic than the air above ground in central london. Plenty of evidence for this around.

      It’s a money grab by failing Sadiq after he’s bankrupted TfL. It will have virtually zero effect on air quality in these outer london boroughs.

      • JOHN MATRIX says:
        24 Aug24 August 09:34

        Poorer TFL air quality doesn’t justify the poor air quality above ground across a huge metropolitan area (plenty of evidence for this also).

        • Andrew. says:
          24 Aug24 August 10:10

          Used to work in an office, without forced ventilation in the City. When we moved offices, my “dirty nose” and grubby shirt collars mysteriously disappeared. The levels of staff sickness dropped by a notable percentage.

          Turned out that there was a tube chimney behind our office, so when we opened the windows for ventilation we were breathing in the dirty humid air being pumped up from down below.

        • JohnG says:
          24 Aug24 August 15:44

          Typical whataboutism that you get when someone’s got no real case to make; note how they aren’t suggesting doing anything about the air quality on the tube.

          As to Khan bankrupting TfL it was infact their beloved Johnson who was in charge when TfL’s debts reached £9.1 billion. That debt has gone up by about £4 billion since Khan became major; not coincidently TfLs revenue in 2020/21 and 2021/22 was £4.5 billion lower than it would have been if it had remained at 2019/20 levels. It’s almost like a pandemic happened causing a gigantic drop in use of public transport…

      • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:
        24 Aug24 August 09:50

        There may be issues with the air quality (particularly particulate) but it’s not the same as above ground. No emissions from tube trains as they are electric for example.

        ULEZ is a Boris Johnson policy.

        Khan hasn’t bankrupt TFL. Until the pandemic he was paying off the debts Boris left.

        • LittleNick says:
          24 Aug24 August 10:14

          I’m no BoJo fan but even if it was a BoJo policy initially he’s not the one that decided to go ahead and expand it, that’s the current mayor who’s wholly responsible for this.

          “No emissions from trains” – Not correct unless 100% of the electricity has been generated from sources that contribute no emissions. It’s simply outsourced from the tube stock to wherever electricity generation is.

          • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:
            24 Aug24 August 10:34

            It’s clear I meant no direct emissions from the trains. And that’s what most people mean when they say “emissions free vehicles”

        • Londonsteve says:
          26 Aug26 August 17:07

          Not only was ULEZ a Johnson policy, the current government forced Khan to expand ULEZ when he did in order to agree to the bailout for TFL due to reduced fare sales owing to the pandemic. The haste of the expansion can therefore be pinned at the door of the Tory government who showed a reluctance to support London transport with extra money to make up for the absence of passengers.

      • Adam says:
        24 Aug24 August 13:05

        This is a non-sequitur. The air in the deep tube lines isn’t great for particulates due to brake/rail dust, etc, but NOx is not an issue. If you travel via tube to work every day for any meaningful length of time you should probably wear a mask if you care for your long term health. This is an issue largely caused by the difficulty of providing adequate ventilation, a problem that is very hard to fix when you cannot shut down these lines for any meaningful length of time, and you’re constrained by victorian era infrastructure. They’ve been working on improving this for many years.

        The mayor hasn’t ‘bankrupted’ TfL, TfL compared to other major cities in the world is subsidised by the government to a far lesser degree – meaning most of its operating budget needs to come from ticket sales, which declined dramatically during the pandemic. It was then forced to accept deliberately punitive funding terms by the government. It is chronically underfunded, like the rest of the UK’s failing infrastructure and public services.

        ULEZ, along with other measures, has already had a meaningful positive impact on the air quality in the city. I agree that it is a regressive charge, in that poorer people are more likely to be impacted, and it clearly should have come along with an improved scrappage scheme, but it’s worth noting that poor air quality disproportionately impacts the poorest people in the city, also.

        • ashic says:
          24 Aug24 August 14:50

          ULEZ was first introduced by BoJo. Grant Shapps made rolling it out a condition for continued funding of TFL during the pandemic. It’s amusing that the Tories are trying to blame Khan for it when Shapps literally forced Khan into it.

    • VINZ says:
      24 Aug24 August 11:13

      So well put.

  • Roast Chicken says:
    24 Aug24 August 09:04

    Well I live in East Anglia and have to go to LHR in November for a 10 day trip. I drive a non-ULEZ compliant vehicle. I’m just going to totally ignore it and not pay. What the fu*@ can they really do? Send me loads of silly aggressive letters in the post? Absolutely nothing at all. If I lived and had the vehicle located within Greater London perhaps they might have more recourse to come after me.

    • Rob says:
      24 Aug24 August 09:34

      Can you get your insurance or car tax renewed if there are outstanding claims against you?

      Genuinely surprised that you live in East Anglia because when we did our reader survey 18 months ago, out of 10,000 readers who filled it in, only 11 admitted to living in East Anglia. This would make the total ‘regular’ HfP readership in East Anglia at around 50 people 🙂

      • Roast Chicken says:
        24 Aug24 August 11:35

        Yup, a sleepy medieval Suffolk village. Beautiful location and fresh clean air out here, beats London. But with crazy narrow and windy roads, my 17 year old diesel-guzzling, emissions spewing Land Rover serves me very well.

        • George says:
          25 Aug25 August 09:51

          “Beautiful location and fresh clean air out here, beats London.”

          And yet you are happy to come to where I live and spew diesel around?

          “I’m just going to totally ignore it and not pay”

          LOL at your course of action, how old are you? Good luck ignoring the charges, which will mount up pretty quickly. As a commentor says below – could ultimately end up in bankruptcy. I suspect you’ll change your tune.

    • Jack says:
      24 Aug24 August 09:44

      Bring a court claim against you, enforce by seizing and selling your car (or if that’s leased, by getting a third party debt order) and then if all that fails then force you into bankruptcy! It’s quite a simple process…

      • Roast Chicken says:
        24 Aug24 August 11:27

        Well what if it’s a hypothetical European tourist driving over here, racking up some ULEZ charges and then disappearing back to the continent with their EU registered car? Suspect they are then totally out of reach from Khan’s little courts?

        • supergraeme says:
          24 Aug24 August 15:18

          No, presumably they wouldn’t have the data to know that the car isn’t compliant.

    • Dev says:
      24 Aug24 August 09:46

      I would not put it past them to stitch you up with a CCJ for failure to pay.

    • ken says:
      24 Aug24 August 10:00

      If you fail to pay a Penalty Charge Notice you will get a charge certificate with 50% added on.
      Fail to pay this and you will get a court order for payment.
      Fail to pay this and Bailiffs will come to your home to demand payment.
      Even if you live in Norfolk.
      Charges rack up almost exponentially. It doesn’t take much head in sand action to sail past £1k

      Of course none of this will happen because you will cough up.

    • George K says:
      24 Aug24 August 10:12

      Fully supportive of this course of action. This will ensure that my favourite daytime TV programme, ‘Can’t Pay? We’ll Take it Away’ will continue with fresh material for the next few years.

    • Roast Chicken says:
      24 Aug24 August 11:25

      Never had a PCN before

    • Londonsteve says:
      26 Aug26 August 19:22

      LOL! You clearly are a know nothing, a complete fool. TFL will make roast chicken of you, no different if you don’t pay a parking ticket to your local council and they’ll do it at the stroke of a pen without breaking sweat.

  • Peter says:
    24 Aug24 August 09:14

    This is a great policy, so happy that Sadiq was able to get it done! Less toxic air and good for the environment as well

    • Pierce says:
      24 Aug24 August 10:15

      Agreed. As someone who lives inside the upcoming ULEZ expansion, I’m thrilled with it – air pollution is such an underrated issue that has a massive impact on health over the long term. If we get even a small percentage improvement in air quality I’ll count it a win.

  • Sharon says:
    24 Aug24 August 09:23

    I bet all the taxi firms coming to LHR from outer London suburbs will put their prices up irrespective of whether their cars are compliant or not.

    • Londonsteve says:
      26 Aug26 August 23:10

      Why would they? Any minicab firm in London drives compliant vehicles as of 2019. They have to otherwise they wouldn’t be able to pick up fares in central London.

  • Looney Carne says:
    24 Aug24 August 09:29

    Including LHR in this ridiculous revenue raising scam when hundreds of aircraft take off and land each day is typical of Khan(t). His confused understanding of environmental pollution is hilarious. The “research” conclusions published by his “employees” at Imperial is now being exposed as being incorrect and STILL his comrades try to sweep the facts under the carpet.
    My vehicles will not emit any less or any more toxic fumes no matter how much you charge me. If I have no choice but to use my vehicle to get to LHR (mostly due to luggage and a blue badge partner) then I will continue to do so. Luckily I have a choice of vehicles which are actually ULEZ compliant……….for now………and can hence escape this tax. Dont get me started on what he wastes the money on that he raises from alk these “how dare you have a car” taxes!!

    • The Savage Squirrel says:
      24 Aug24 August 09:37

      “Luckily I have a choice of vehicles which are actually ULEZ compliant“. Love how you claim this policy is not working while describing how it is influencing your choices (the whole point of the policy!) in the very same sentence 🤣.

      • JohnG says:
        24 Aug24 August 15:48

        Pretty much sums up the Daily Mail brigades self-owning on this issue: “The ULEZ is pointless, I just won’t drive my polluting car there anymore hah!”

    • JOHN MATRIX II says:
      24 Aug24 August 09:39

      great – you’ll use a compliant vehicle in the ULEZ and if/when you don’t you’ll contribute to the costs of air pollution. Thanks!

    • jjoohhnn says:
      24 Aug24 August 09:56

      Presumably since Heathrow is private land, they had to opt in to allow this to be applied on their roads. So it sounds like your complaint is with Heathrow..

  • Colin says:
    24 Aug24 August 09:37

    This is the cart before the horse again. In order to get people out of their cars and onto ‘greener’ forms of transport you need an integrated transport plan. Heathrow is great for a London resident but from any where else it is a horror story, being both complicated, expensive and unreliable. Before introducing these ‘penalty charges’ the politicians should have connected Heathrow to the wider rail network and made it easy, smooth, clean and a reliable way to get to the airport. This should have been sorted out 50 years ago.

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:
      24 Aug24 August 10:18

      “but from any where else it is a horror story”

      If a just shy of two hours NEX coach trip to LHR from Amex-sur-Mer costing less than £15 is an “horror story” then I’ve endured some horrendous journeys which were on time and in comfort with a friendly driver. Oh how I suffered!

      Lizzie line has made access to LHR much easier for many people. And it did what you wanted – it connects LHR to the wider rail network. Not perfect but better than it was especially as LHR was never a Crossrail / Lizzie original destination being added relatively late to the project,

      Some journeys aren’t as easy as that though but exaggeration just makes your claim ridiculous.

      • The Savage Squirrel says:
        24 Aug24 August 14:25

        “Amex-sur-Mer“. I applaud this little touch of genius 🤣

    • JohnG says:
      24 Aug24 August 15:52

      I don’t disagree about rail links but you’re either oversimplifying or missing an obvious point. The major of London doesn’t get to set national transport policy so by all means take it up with the national government; in the meanwhile it doesn’t make sense to tell the major to indefinitely delay something he thinks is good for their city because the national government can only organise a p*ss up in a lockdown.

  • Sai says:
    24 Aug24 August 10:05

    I think this sentence needs to be rephrased or removed: “If you have a petrol vehicle under 16 years old or diesel vehicle under six years old then it is highly likely that it meets the required standards.”

    Euro 4 emissions standards for petrol engines were introduced January 2005, and Euro 6 diesel standards in September 2015. The number of people who incorrectly believe their cars are not compliant because of that phrasing (thanks to the TfL ads, not this article), or will cease to be when they turn 16 years old (for petrol engines) is pretty crazy. Much better to say if your car is registered from x date for y fuel type, it is likely to be compliant.

    • Rob says:
      24 Aug24 August 10:10

      It’s copied from TfL.

      • Niall says:
        24 Aug24 August 11:04

        I think Sai knows this and that the point is that TFL’s wording is not the best and for the good reasons given. Those dates when the standards came in are more useful.

      • Sai says:
        24 Aug24 August 17:26

        Niall is correct; I am aware it’s copied from TfL (as I alluded to in my comment) but that doesn’t make it any less misleading.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

New to Head for Points?

Welcome!  We’re the UK’s most-read source of business travel, Avios, frequent flyer and hotel loyalty news. Let us improve how you travel. Got any questions? Ask them in our forums.

Get 25,000 Avios with the Barclaycard Avios Plus Mastercard

GET A SIGN-UP BONUS OF 18,000 VIRGIN POINTS!

Latest Forum Posts

Get 80,000 bonus points (worth 80,000 Avios) and £400 of dining credit with The Platinum Card (Offer ends 27th May)

Check reward flight availability instantly for free!

See a whole year of reward seat availability on one page at SeatSpy.com

Get up to 10,000 bonus Hilton Honors points

Booking a luxury hotel?

Our luxury hotel booking service offers you GUARANTEED extra benefits over booking direct. Works with Four Seasons, Mandarin Oriental, The Ritz Carlton, St Regis and more. We've booked £1.7 million of rooms to date. Click for details.

SME? GET THE ONLY FREE SMALL BUSINESS CREDIT CARD WHICH CAN EARN AVIOS

Get points worth 30,000 Avios with 'first year free' American Express Gold (ends 27th May)

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.

Got it!