Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the rejection of an application to the Authority’s light van and minibus scrappage scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Authority refusing to pay the scrappage grant for one of his vans. He says the van was accepted for the scheme, but he could not scrap it util new vehicles were obtained which was just outside the 6-month scrappage deadline. He wants the authority to pay the grant which was worth £7,000 to his business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an authority’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says his business ordered new vans to be compliant with the Ultra Low Emissions Zone requirements. The Authority had a grant scheme to refund van owners if they complied with it. Mr X says he applied for two of his existing vans for the scheme and they were accepted. The terms of the scheme required the vans to be scrapped within 6 months of the acceptance.
7. Mr X says he had problems with the financing and delivery of a new van and was unable to comply with the 6-month deadline for scrappage on one of the vans. He scrapped the van shortly after the date when a new van was obtained. The Authority told him that he was ineligible for the grant and the scheme has now ended because the funds are exhausted.
8. Mr X wants the Authority to pay him the grant as the delay was outside his control.
9. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. The authority has no discretion to award the grant because the scheme was operated on a ‘first come first serve’ basis and the budget is now exhausted. The application made the details of the terms clear to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the rejection of an application to the Authority’s light van and minibus scrappage scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman