The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a payment under the Ultra Low Emission Zone scrappage scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Authority’s decision that he is ineligible for a grant under the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) scrappage scheme. Mr X wants the Authority to make a £2000 award because he replaced his vehicle with one that is compliant.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority. This includes the correspondence about Mr X’s application and information about the scrappage scheme. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
From January 2023 some people could apply for a grant to help with the cost of replacing a non-compliant vehicle with one that meets the emission rules for the ULEZ. People who could apply included those on a low income and some with a disability. During the summer the Authority acquired additional funding for the scheme which meant every London resident with a non-compliant vehicle could apply to the scheme.
Mr X scrapped a non-compliant vehicle. Mr X subsequently applied for an award after the scheme was made available to everyone. He says he contacted the Authority and was invited to apply.
The Authority rejected the application because Mr X had scrapped the vehicle before making the application. The Authority explained that the rules state the applicant must make a successful application before scrapping the vehicle. In this case, Mr X applied after he scrapped the vehicle. The Authority apologised for not giving the correct information when he enquired about making the application.
Mr X says he paid money to replace his non-compliant vehicle which was a drain on his resources. He says the Authority changed the rules and the Authority should accept retrospective applications. Mr X wants a £2000 grant.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. The rules state a person must apply before the vehicle is scrapped and it must have valid road tax, MOT and insurance. The rules also state the applicant must not scrap the vehicle before the Authority has confirmed the award. The Authority’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application is consistent with the rules so there is no need to start an investigation.
The rules changed during 2023 and Mr X may have been illegible before the scheme was made available to all. The terms and conditions state the scheme is subject to change at any time providing the changes do not apply to applications that have already been received. Mr X applied after the rules changed but he was ineligible because he had already scrapped the vehicle. There is nothing in the rules to say the Authority can award a grant when the rules change but someone has already scrapped the vehicle.
I can understand why Mr X feels aggrieved but there is no suggestion of fault and no reason to start an investigation. In addition, we have no power to tell the Authority to pay Mr X £2000.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman