Working families and disabled people living on the border between Kent and London say they feel "exiled" by the upcoming expansion of the ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ).

The scheme is due to be extended to cover the whole of the capital – including the boroughs of Bexley and Bromley – from August 29.

It will see Dartford residents who need to travel for work, leisure, to attend hospital appointments or care for loved ones charged £12.50 a day if their vehicle is non ULEZ compliant.

The mayor of London Sadiq Khan says the move was “one of the toughest decisions" he'd taken but was necessary to address London's dirty air.

But the expansion has been blasted as ill-timed amid the cost-of-living crisis and fears over the impact on low-income households, disabled people and small businesses unable to afford new cars.

It will also have serious consequences on NHS patients with some having to pay to go for a hospital appointment "across the border", it is claimed.

Some patients clinically assessed as too ill to travel to an appointment on public transport may be able to claim back the charge under an exemption list being drawn up.

But there are disabled patients who do not meet this criteria who now fear the charges.

Among those affected include Hextable resident John Hare who is often sent to Queen Mary's Hospital in Sidcup for tests and treatment by Darent Valley Hospital in Dartford.

The two hospitals are linked and Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust provides a number of specialist services on-site in Bexley.

John is unable to walk more than 20 yards and so cannot get to his closest bus stop on foot to take the three buses he would need to travel to his appointments, meaning he has no choice but to use his car.

He receives a daily living personal independence payment (PIP) but not a mobility rate PIP so he is not able to register his car as disabled and isn't eligible for the disability benefits grace period.

John said: "My car is not ULEZ compliant and there is no way I can get a new car on my pension.

"I get PIP at a lower level because some decision maker who has never seen me or known how difficult it is to walk up to 20 yards, decides I'm not going to get the higher level.

"I never appealed against their decision because knowing how they work I could have ended up with nothing, instead of what I'm getting.

"I can only just cover the energy price hike and get food on the table, so a new car is out of the question."

Ebbsfleet resident Bethany Granger has also been referred to Queen Mary's in Sidcup for appointments by her doctors in Northfleet.

But Bethany, 31, says her 62-plate Kia, which she describes as a general family car, is not compliant.

However, this is not her only concern as her step-daughter lives "just across the border" in St Paul's Cray, Bromley.

"This will mean that I cannot collect her or drop her off, take her to birthday parties, visit her school or gymnastics club for events," she explained.

"My husband has a compliant car but if he is working or if there is an emergency then I will have no choice but to pay to reach her, which is so unfair as the restrictions do not need to come out this far whatsoever.

"We also have an eight-month-old and some of his baby classes and social activities we have attended are across "the border" so we will not be able to continue those, which is such a shame to us, but also to the small businesses we support."

Bethany and her husband Luke, 33, run wedding photography company Luke Granger Photography and she says the charge will be "really frustrating for both work and home life".

Another Dartford resident, who did not want to be named, said she was especially concerned as she and her husband both have elderly mums living in Bexley.

The pair visit both weekly, and also attend church and do their weekly shop in the London borough where her partner works.

On top of her husband's travel to work five days a week these trips could see the couple amass thousands of pounds in ULEZ charges.

It's a cost she says they simply cannot afford, adding: "Yes, we could replace one of our cars but that costs a lot of money.

"Even when my husband retires we will still have to find £4,200 per year if we continue life as it is now.

"We are being exiled from where our family lives. We are quite scared because this will change our lives totally as practically all our family on both sides live in Bexley."

"We are being exiled from where our family lives. We are quite scared because this will change our lives totally."

More than 90% of vehicles are estimated to currently be compliant with the ULEZ restrictions.

But Dartford council leader Cllr Jeremy Kite said last month that although the charge may only affect a small proportion of drivers, "they are the ones least able to afford it".

There is a grace period available, meaning people who use a non-compliant car but fit a number of conditions will be exempt from paying the daily ULEZ charge until October 24, 2027.

This includes disabled people whose vehicles are registered with the DVLA as having a 'disabled' or 'disabled passenger' vehicle tax class benefit, and disabled people over state pension age who receive attendance allowance and hold a blue badge.

Vehicles that have been converted by mobility experts to allow a disabled person to access either as a driver or as a passenger are also eligible for the grace period, as will recipients of certain disability benefits.

Several of the 24 London boroughs affected have raised objections to the ULEZ plan.

It come after its most recent expansion in October slapped around 80,000 Kent motorists with an £80 fine after driving into the new ULEZ zones.

By area, Medway motorists were most frequently stung with 16,689 fines amassed, followed closely by Dartford (10,320) and Gravesham (7,602).

Over the weekend hundreds of people attended a protest against the scheme in Bromley High Street.

It comes after several councils surrounding the capital – including Kent County Council – refused to sign an agreement allowing City Hall to install street signs and cameras warning drivers they are approaching the clean air zone.

But the capital’s mayor wrote to the council leaders describing their grounds for a potential legal challenge to the measure as “wholly without merit and misconceived”.

He insisted it is “simply not true” that the scheme is a “money-making venture” and denied accusations City Hall officials had provided 'false and misleading' information.

Mr Khan wrote that he is “determined to reduce the toxic air in our city, which leads to around 4,000 Londoners dying prematurely every year”.

He added: “Instead of pursuing an expensive legal challenge funded by local residents, I would hope you would work with me to help clean up the dirty air that’s blighting our city and the lives of those we represent.”