Summary: Mr X complained the Authority wrongly refused his applications under its Light Van Scrappage Scheme. There was no fault in how the Authority assessed Mr X’s grant applications. However, it did not reply to some later messages from Mr X. This caused him avoidable frustration for which the Authority agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Authority wrongly refused his applications under its Light Van Scrappage Scheme. He said that, despite providing all the required evidence, the Authority refused to pay him the grants he was entitled to. He also said that the Authority’s online enquiry system lost his messages and it ignored his emails.
2. As a result, he said he did not receive the grant payments he was entitled to. He wanted the Authority to pay him as it should have done.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an authority’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Authority’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• the scrappage scheme terms and conditions.
6. Mr X and the Authority had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Light Van Scrappage Scheme

7. The Authority’s Light Van Scrappage Scheme (the scheme) provided grants to eligible small businesses towards the costs of replacing existing light vans which did not meet the standards for London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone.
8. The scheme had a two-stage application process:
• Stage 1 – Eligibility checks and approval to replace an old vehicle under the scheme.
• Stage 2 – Disposal of an existing vehicle and evidence of purchase or lease of a qualifying new vehicle.
9. At Stage 1, applicants had to provide the following evidence of their old vehicle:
• The vehicle registration document.
• A current certificate of motor insurance.
• A current MOT certificate.
10. If the old vehicle was eligible for a grant under the scheme, applicants then had to provide further evidence of the disposal and replacement of the vehicle within six months of approval under Stage 1. Applicants had to provide a certificate of destruction for the old vehicle and the following evidence for the replacement:
• The vehicle registration document.
• Proof of purchase or lease/hire agreement.
• A current certificate of insurance.
11. The Authority would make the grant payment only if the required evidence was provided within the stated timescales.

What happened

12. Mr X applied to replace two vans under the scheme in June 2020. Mr X only included the MOT certificate for one of the vehicles, so the Authority asked him for the other certificate, which Mr X provided in early July.
13. The Authority approved Mr X’s applications under Stage 1 of the scheme on 24 July 2020. In the approval letter, it told him what further evidence he needed to provide under Stage 2 within six months.
14. Mr X did not provide the evidence required for Stage 2, so the Authority wrote to him on 3 February 2021 giving Mr X a further 30 days to provide the evidence.
15. In late February, Mr X provided a certificate of destruction for one of the vehicles. The Authority wrote to Mr X two days later asking for the outstanding evidence.
16. Mr X replied on 1 March 2021 asking for more time to provide the evidence because he was having difficulty arranging replacement vehicles. The Authority replied on 5 March, saying it had escalated Mr X’s request for an extension and would let him know the outcome. In the meantime, Mr X disposed of his second vehicle and provided the certificate of destruction.
17. In late March 2021, Mr X provided partial copies of the vehicle registration documents for his two new vehicles. However, he did not provide the required proof of purchase/lease or insurance.
18. The following day, the Authority wrote to Mr X, rejecting his request for an extension. The Authority says that the explanation provided in that letter was incorrect since it referred to Mr X’s difficulties arranging replacement vehicles, rather than the evidence being provided out of time.
19. Mr X chased the Authority for an update in June 2021. However, the Authority did not reply to Mr X’s message.
20. In late July 2021, Mr X again provided partial evidence for the disposal of one of his vehicles. The Authority responded in early August explaining that Mr X’s applications had been closed because he had not provided all the necessary evidence within the time allowed under the scheme.
21. Mr X asked the Authority several more times to reconsider his applications, but the Authority refused to do so and explained that Mr X had not provided the required evidence within the time allowed under the scheme.
22. In response to my enquiries, the Authority offered to reopen Mr X’s application if he provided the necessary evidence. If this evidence meets the requirements of the scheme, it said it would make the payments to Mr X.

My findings

23. The terms and conditions of the scheme say that once the Authority has approved an application under Stage 1, applicants must provide evidence of the disposal of the old vehicle and evidence of the replacement within six months. This information was also covered in the Authority’s Stage 1 approval letter to Mr X.
24. The Authority approved Mr X’s applications under Stage 1 on 24 July 2020, so Mr X had until 24 January 2021 to provide the necessary Stage 2 evidence. When he had not done so, the Authority gave Mr X a further 30 days to provide the necessary evidence.
25. However, the Authority’s records show that Mr X did not provide all the evidence required under the scheme within the six months allowed under the scheme, or the extra 30 days the Authority gave him. There is no evidence to show that Mr X provided the required evidence within the time allowed. I am satisfied there was no fault in how the Authority applied the rules of the scheme to Mr X.
26. The Authority has accepted that one of the letters it sent Mr X included an incorrect explanation and that it did not reply to some of his messages. I accept that this was frustrating for Mr X. However, these errors happened after the deadlines for providing evidence under the scheme, so I am satisfied they did not affect the Authority’s assessment of Mr X’s applications.
27. In any case, the Authority has offered to reconsider Mr X’s applications if he provides the outstanding evidence.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of my final decision, the Authority will apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused by not responding to his later messages.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in how the Authority assessed Mr X’s grant applications. However, it did not reply to some later messages from Mr X. This caused him avoidable frustration for which the Authority agreed to apologise.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman