Summary: Mr C complains about the way the Authority dealt with his vehicle scrappage scheme application. Mr C says the Authority wrongly rejected his application and he spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter. We have found fault in the Authority’s handling of Mr C’s application but consider the agreed action to review information provided to applicants together the action already proposed by the Authority of an apology and £250 is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the way the Authority dealt with his application for a grant under its Ultra Low Emission Zone scrappage scheme for light vans or mini buses.
2. Mr C says because of the Authority's fault, it wrongly rejected his application and he spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter.

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 read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered information from the Authority and provided a copy of this to Mr C. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Authority and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C applied to a scrappage scheme for light vans or mini buses in July 2020. He provided details of his vehicle on the application form as a Nissan Terrano and provided a copy of his registration document, MOT certificate and insurance. The registration document for Mr C’s vehicle states it is a Nissan Terrano TD with a vehicle category of N1, gross weight of 2510 kilograms and body type as ‘light 4x4 utility.’ The application form refers to guidance notes that should be read before making an application.
7. The scrappage scheme website provided a link to the terms and conditions for vehicle eligibility for the scheme. These provide the definition of a light van at Schedule 1, Part 2 as:

‘A Light van is a Recipient's pre-Euro 6 light diesel van (or pre-Euro 4 petrol van) as specified in category N1 as defined by United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, body type should reference van and the revenue weight must be 3500kg or less’

8. The Authority rejected Mr C’s application towards the end of 2020. There followed correspondence between Mr C and the Authority until September 2021 when he approached the Ombudsman with his complaint. The Authority raised various issues with Mr C’s application during this period but did not advise him that his vehicle was not eligible for the scheme.
9. The Authority says that when deciding if a vehicle is eligible for the van scrappage scheme it uses the vehicle information held by the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). The registration document provided by Mr C confirmed the vehicle was the required N1 type vehicle and weighed under the 3500 kilogram limit. However, the body type listed for Mr C’s vehicle on the registration document was a light 4x4 utility rather than a van. This did not meet the requirement for the vehicle body type to be referred to as a van. The Authority has confirmed this is the reason Mr C’s vehicle is not eligible for the scheme.
10. The Authority acknowledges the manufacturer’s marketing material refers to the vehicle as a Terrano van. However, the Authority relies on the information held by the DVLA and notes vehicle information, such as the body type, is usually provided to the DVLA by the manufacturer at the point of first registration.   
11. During the course of our involvement, the Authority accepted there were several processing errors in its consideration of Mr C’s application. The Authority explained it should have rejected Mr C’s application when it first received it but this did not happen. Instead, the Authority accepts it continued to ask Mr C for further information and provided him with incorrect information about the reason it could not continue with his application. The Authority did not provide the correct reason that Mr C’s vehicle was not eligible for the scheme during the application process despite opportunities to do so.
12. The Authority has further accepted that this failure caused Mr C inconvenience. I would add that it also unreasonably raised Mr C’s expectation that his application may be successful. The Authority notes it did not approve Mr C’s application and so it did not advise him at any point to scrap his vehicle or to purchase a new one. The Authority accepts this does not excuse the inconvenience it has caused Mr C and has offered to provide a written apology and an ex-gratia payment of £250 in recognition of this. I am satisfied this is in line with our published guidance on remedies and provides a proportionate remedy to Mr C.
13. The Authority says the scrappage scheme has now closed but if a new scheme is opened in the future, it will ensure the issues raised in Mr C’s application around verification of entitlement are highlighted to the relevant teams to prevent any reoccurrence of the same fault.
14. The Ombudsman would welcome the Authority’s actions above. However, I consider the Authority should also review the information provided to scrappage scheme applicants on its website and application form to ensure key eligibility criteria such as vehicle body type are also listed rather than relying on the definition contained in a schedule of the terms and conditions. Applicants should also be advised the Authority will use the DVLA information for this purpose.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. As set out above, the Authority should provide a written apology and payment of £250 in recognition of Mr C’s avoidable inconvenience and raised expectations within one month of my final decision.
16. In addition, the Authority should review the information provided to applicants on its website and application forms to ensure key eligibility criteria such as vehicle body type are also listed and that DVLA information will be used for this purpose within three months of my final decision (with any necessary changes implemented ahead of any schemes being reopened).

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation as there was fault by the Authority which caused Mr C injustice. I consider the agreed action above including the action the Authority has already proposed provides a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman