Met Police reveal nearly 1,000 ULEZ cameras have been stolen or damaged in the last seven months

In recent months, there has been a drastic increase in crimes relating to London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) cameras.

The Metropolitan Police have announced that 987 cameras have been targeted by activists in the last seven months – with 220 being stolen, and a further 767 being damaged to a point where they couldn’t capture any images.

Ever since London Mayor Sadiq Khan confirmed the expansion zone at the end of August to cover the whole of Greater London, cameras have received the brunt of the anger from drivers affected by the decision.

According to the police, damage to the cameras included spray painting, ripping out wiring, and even knocking the whole unit over.

So far, five arrests have been made, and two charges have been issued.

• Londoners divided on ULEZ expansion according to YouGov poll
• London ULEZ – what you need to know
• Nearly 1,000 drivers receive ULEZ refunds after installation error

All drivers who do not meeting the required emission standards are required to pay a £12.50 daily fee.

The expansion that took into effect on the 29th August, including everything within the North and South Circular roads.

Drivers who fail to pay, will be issued a fine. They start at £180 – but can be increased to £250.

However, if the charge is paid within two weeks, then it is reduced to £90.

In response to the criminal acts, police vans with automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) have been travelling across the capital.

Officers are now wearing balaclavas and other items of clothing to hide their identities, after clashing with activists looking to challenge the scheme.

Following the revelation about the increase in crime, a Scotland Yard spokesperson stated: “The Met continues to treat criminal activity in relation to ULEZ seriously and has deployed considerable resources to our operation.

“Where there are possible lines of enquiry, local investigators will follow up using a range of investigative approaches including CCTV trawls, witness searches and an assessment of forensic opportunities.”

What do you make of the statistics? Do you oppose low emission zones? Or are they necessary? Leave your comments below.