Summary: Mr X complained about the way Transport for London (TfL) dealt with his application for a grant under its car scrappage scheme. We have not found fault by TfL in the way it decided to reject Mr X’s application. But we have found fault by TfL in failing to communicate properly with Mr X about his application, and failing to publish changes to its scheme in a timely fashion, causing injustice. We have recommended that TfL apologises to Mr X, and makes him a symbolic payment to reflect his time, trouble, and the loss of opportunity to sell his car sooner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complained that TfL refused his application for its vehicle scrappage scheme. He also complained about delays in the process.
2. Mr X said the matter has caused him frustration and financial injustice. He wanted TfL to pay him the scrappage grant.

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. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I spoke to Mr X and read the information he and TfL provided to us about the complaint.
7. Mr X and TfL had opportunities to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

TfL’s scrappage scheme

8. The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) car and motorcycle scrappage scheme (the scheme) is operated by TfL for London residents with cars, motorcycles and wheelchair accessible vehicles that do not meet the ULEZ emissions standards.
9. All London residents can apply for a grant of up to £2,000 for scrapping or donating a car.
10. TfL publishes the scheme guidance notes, application form, and terms and conditions on its website.
11. The scheme guidance notes confirm that TfL aims to process an applicant’s evidence within ten working days.
12. The version of the scheme’s terms and conditions that came into effect on 15 March 2024 includes that:

• An Ineligible Recipient is (a) an applicant of TfL's Taxi Delicensing Scheme who has had an accepted application or who has received a payment from TfL in relation to the Taxi Delicensing Scheme or (b) from 21 August 2023 onward, an applicant seeking to submit an application in respect of a taxi that is either presently licensed with TfL or that has been licensed with TfL during the 12 month period preceding the launch of the scheme on 30 January 2023; or (c) an applicant who has received a Grant Payment from TfL in relation to the ULEZ Car and Motorcycle Scrappage Scheme, or does not meet the eligibility criteria of the Scheme.

13. The previous version of the terms and conditions, that were in effect from 21 August 2023, did not include provision (b) above.
14. The August 2023 terms and conditions included that:

• The Scheme is subject to change at any time at TfL's sole discretion, provided that any such change will not apply to Applications made before the date of that change save where TfL at its sole discretion elects otherwise. Any changes made to ULEZ Car and Motorcycle Scrappage Scheme will be published on the TfL website.

15. Earlier versions of the scheme’s terms and conditions had included the term set out above, but without the phrase “save where TfL at its sole discretion elects otherwise”.

What happened

The application

16. Mr X owned a car which did not meet ULEZ requirements.
17. In September 2023 Mr X applied to TfL for a grant under the scrappage scheme. He confirmed in the application form he accepted the scheme terms and conditions.
18. Ten weeks later, TfL responded to Mr X’s application, explaining:

• It had assessed his application and his car was not eligible for the scheme;
• This was because it had been licensed with TfL as a taxi until August 2023, and;
• A taxi licence must have been surrendered or expired at least 12 months prior to the launch of the scrappage scheme on 30 January 2023 (i.e. by 30 January 2022) for a vehicle to be eligible for funding.

19. The letter also advised Mr X not to scrap his vehicle under the terms of this scheme as TfL could not authorise a grant payment.

The complaint

20. Mr X complained to TfL that the explanation given in the application rejection letter did not reflect the eligibility criteria set out in the scheme guidance notes or in the scheme’s terms and conditions. He suggested that the rule about the date of surrender of a taxi licence had been fabricated in response to his complaint. Mr X chased TfL twice before receiving a response.
21. TfL replied to Mr X’s complaint two months later. That letter included an apology for the delay in processing his application and in responding to his complaint. It repeated the reason that his application had been rejected, but gave no further explanation.

Our investigation

22. Mr X complained to us in March 2024. He said TfL was at fault because it had rejected his application on the basis of unpublished criteria. He considered this to be unfair and procedurally incorrect. He had been required to continue to tax and insure his vehicle for the time that had elapsed since his original scrappage application, causing him an unexpected financial burden. The value of his vehicle has also depreciated during that period.
23. Mr X also complained about the delays in dealing with his application and in responding to his complaint. He said that TfL’s complaint responses lacked detail and information on how to appeal the decision.
24. TfL told us that, when the scheme was launched on 30 January 2023, the car and motorcycle element of the scheme was open to London residents on certain low income or disability benefits. On 21 August 2023, the eligibility criteria changed, and applicants no longer needed to be in receipt of a benefit to apply for the scheme.
25. TfL said that, since 21 August 2023, its policy had been not to accept applications for funding to scrap taxis that were either presently licensed or were licensed during the 12-month period preceding the launch of the scheme.
26. When we asked why this condition was not included in the August 2023 terms and conditions, or elsewhere on the TfL website, TfL told us the change was introduced at short notice and as an internal business rule. TfL did not carry out any public information campaigns or update the information on the website at the time. It said that it advised customers of the new policy when they submitted a relevant application.

My findings – was there fault by TfL causing injustice?

TfL’s decision to reject Mr X’s application

27. Based on the evidence I have seen, my view is TfL had the right to amend the terms and conditions of its scheme to exclude current and former taxis, and to apply this change retrospectively, without consulting on the change. That is because the terms and conditions that were in force at the time of Mr X’s application included that the scheme is subject to change at any time, and that changes to the scheme may be applied retrospectively, at TfL's sole discretion.
28. There was no fault in the way TfL made the decision to refuse Mr X’s application. This is because the decision was made in line with its policy.
29. But, TfL’s terms and conditions also state that any changes made to the scheme will be published on the TfL website. The policy change in question was, TfL told us, made on 21 August 2023, and I consider that it should have been included in the version of the terms and conditions published on that date. The change was not published on the website until six months later, and I find that to be fault. As a result of this, Mr X spent time and trouble submitting and pursuing an application for a grant for which his former taxi was not eligible (and there was no way he could have known that).
30. I consider that the delay in processing Mr X’s application was service failure, caused by the unexpected volume of applications made to the scheme. It is my view that the apology offered by TfL went some way towards remedying that delay. But Mr X has told me that he incurred a number of expenses directly related to his vehicle whilst waiting to hear the outcome of his application, a process which took two months longer than it should have done according to TfL’s policy. And so, I recommend TfL should make Mr X a symbolic payment in recognition of his loss of opportunity to sell his car sooner.
31. When TfL refused Mr X’s application, it should have explained to him that the reason for the refusal was because of a new policy, that had not yet been published on the TfL website. In my view it was fault that it did not do so, causing Mr X avoidable confusion and distress.

TfL’s handling of Mr X’s complaint

32. I consider TfL’s delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint, and to his chasing contacts, was fault. TfL’s failure to adequately explain its decision to reject the application in the eventual response to Mr X’s complaint was also fault. Because of these faults, Mr X spent avoidable time and trouble chasing TfL for a response and then bringing his complaint to us.

Back to top

Agreed actions

33. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, TfL will:
• apologise to Mr X for its communication failures in response to his application and his complaint;
• pay Mr X a total of £550: £150 to reflect the time, trouble and distress its faults caused him, and £400 to reflect the loss of opportunity to sell his car two months sooner. This is a symbolic amount in line with our published guidance on remedies; and
• provide us with an explanation about how any future changes to the terms and conditions of its scrappage scheme will be published promptly on its website.
34. TfL should provide us with evidence it has completed these actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by TfL which caused injustice to Mr X. TfL will take the actions identified in paragraphs 33 and 34 to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman