Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) repeatedly rejected his applications for a grant under a scrappage scheme to replace his vehicle with an Ultra Low Emission Zone compliant one, without providing an explanation or requesting further evidence. TfL was at fault for failing to provide an explanation to Mr X on why his repeated applications were rejected which caused him frustration, confusion and prevented him providing additional evidence. TfL will consider Mr X’s evidence, apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) repeatedly rejected his applications for a grant under a scrappage scheme to replace his vehicle with an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) compliant one, without providing an explanation or requesting further evidence. As a result Mr X said he incurred costs running a vehicle that was not ULEZ compliant. Mr X wanted the TfL to properly consider his application and provide an explanation if it rejected it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I read the documents Mr X provided, and discussed the complaint with him on the phone.
5. I considered the documents TfL sent in response to my enquiries.
6. Mr X and TfL had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant information

7. Vehicles that do not meet emissions standards within the central London ULEZ are charged a daily fee to drive within the zone. Transport for London (TfL) operated a scrappage scheme (the scheme) under which successful applicants would receive a grant for scrapping a business van, which did not meet ULEZ emission standards, and replacing it with a ULEZ compliant vehicle. Applicants could also apply for a grant for scrapping a non-compliant vehicle.
8. The van scrappage scheme was open to small businesses, micro businesses and sole traders who could apply to scrap, donate, or retrofit up to three vans or minibuses in total. Its definition of a sole trader was a self-employed person who owns and operates a business within the 32 London boroughs or the City of London  
9. To be approved for the grant, applicants had to submit an application form and satisfy a number of criteria.. To prove sole trader status TfL required one of the following documents:   
• Proof of active business insurance or employers' liability insurance.   
• Proof of self-employment from HMRC.   
• Proof of membership certificate from the Federation of Small Businesses or similar.   
• Proof of a business bank account.   
• Tax return dated within the last three months.  
• Letter from an accountant or solicitor confirming sole trader status.  

What happened

10. Mr X said he is a sole trader and works in London. He owns a work van that is not ULEZ compliant and so he pays the ULEZ charge whenever he works in a ULEZ area.
11. Mr X has an online account with TfL through which he pays his ULEZ charges. The account has been registered with his email address since 2020.
12. Mr X applied for the van scrappage scheme through his online account in January 2023. He provided the application form and supporting documents which included a self-employment tax return with a watermark saying, ‘Copy only, Do not send to HMRC’.
13. TfL responded to Mr X’s application and said the proof of sole trader status was not valid. It did not explain why. It provided a list of valid documents it would accept as set out in paragraph 11.
14. Mr X applied again in February 2023. He submitted tax return forms for the two previous financial years (2021 and 2022), both had the same ‘copy’ watermark.
15. TfL responded and provided the same letter it sent in response to the January application.
16. Mr X, believing his documents to be valid, applied again in March with the same documents.
17. TfL responded with the same letter it sent in January and February.
18. Mr X applied again at the end of March and provided a copy of his tax year overview from the government website as evidence.
19. TfL responded with the same letter it had sent three times previously.
20. Mr X applied again at the end of July 2023. Mr X provided a letter from a bank confirming he had a sole trader bank account. The address on the letter had a different house number to Mr X’s address.
21. TfL responded to Mr X and rejected his application on the basis that the van did not have current road tax at the time he made the application.
22. Mr X applied again at the beginning of August, having taxed the vehicle. He provided the same evidence as the previous application.
23. TfL rejected the application using the same letter it first sent Mr X in January.
24. Mr X applied again at the end of August. He provided a ‘copy’ of his tax return for 2023.
25. TfL rejected the application using the letter it had sent to Mr X five times before.
26. Mr X complained to TfL via email at the beginning of October. He said TfL repeatedly rejected his applications but he believed he had proved his status as a sole trader. Mr X asked TfL to accept his application or provide an explanation of why he did not meet the criteria. TfL acknowledged the complaint and stated it intended to respond within 10 days.
27. Mr X complained again via email when he did not receive a response after one month. TfL acknowledged the complaint and said it intended to respond within 10 days.
28. TfL responded and said Mr X had not provided proof of sole trader status as the tax return document was a copy, and so it could not accept it. It provided a list of the documents it could accept.
29. Dissatisfied with TfL’s response Mr X complained to us in January 2024. We asked TfL to consider Mr X’s complaint and respond to him.
30. TfL responded to Mr X in February. It said it had correctly rejected the applications as he had not provided valid proof of his sole trader status. It said the tax return notated with 'Copy only, do not send to HMRC' could be printed before it was submitted to the HMRC and therefore was not a valid proof. It said Mr X could reapply and gave a list of the valid documents it would consider as proof of sole trader status. It sent it to an invalid email address and Mr X did not receive the response.
31. TfL told us in April that it had not considered Mr X’s complaint, acknowledged that it was significantly delayed and said it would consider remedying the injustice this delay caused when it responded to Mr X within the next week.
32. TfL wrote to Mr X again and said it had not received any further proof of his sole trader status. It reiterated the documents it would accept as proof and signposted Mr X to us if he was dissatisfied. TfL sent the documents to the same invalid email address and Mr X did not receive it.
33. During the period since Mr X first applied for the ULEZ scrappage scheme he has paid £2362.50 in ULEZ charges.

Additional information

34. Mr X said he had downloaded his tax returns from his online HMRC account as he completed them all online, so he did not have a paper copy. Mr X told me that when the documents are downloaded it is HMRC that apply the ‘copy’ watermark and so he could not provide a copy without the ‘copy’ watermark.
35. In response to my enquiries TfL stated the scrappage scheme had now closed but it believed it had correctly rejected Mr X’s applications.
36. It said did not accept the tax return documents that were marked as copies as it did not confirm the tax returns had been submitted to HMRC.
37. It said it did not accept the document from the bank because there was a discrepancy in the address on the documents Mr X provided.
38. It accepted it should have been specific in its responses to Mr X to outline what further information he could have provided to support his application.
39. TfL stated it would contact Mr X and:
• apologise for the confusion caused by the lack of clarity in its letters;
• ask him for an explanation and information on the address discrepancies and outline the specific evidence it required to prove sole trader status;
• consider his application in line with the scrappage scheme and provide a decision to Mr X; and
• if it approved his application it would consider whether it should refund any of the ULEZ charges Mr X incurred during the period he was applying for the scheme.

My findings

40. Mr X made seven applications to the scrappage scheme between January and August 2023. On six occasions TfL used the same generic letter to reject the application. TfL did not explain why it did not accept the tax return documents, or the bank document. Mr X believed he had provided valid evidence, and without an explanation of why the documents were not valid he continued to apply using variations of the same information. TfL’s failure to provide a proper explanation at any point to Mr X was poor communication and was fault. It caused him frustration and confusion, and effectively prevented him from providing valid evidence.
41. I cannot say what decision TfL would have made, had it provided an explanation to Mr X on the documents and an opportunity to explain the issue with the address discrepancy or provide other valid proof of his sole trader status. TfL has suggested it provides Mr X an explanation and considers his application now, which is an appropriate remedy. However, it does not remedy the frustration and confusion caused to Mr X. I have recommended a further remedy below.
42. We asked TfL to respond to Mr X’s complaint in January 2024. TfL responded and provided an explanation, however it sent it to an invalid email address that was not the one Mr X had used to complain or the one linked to his online account. It sent its second response to the same invalid email address. From Mr X’s perspective TfL did not respond to his complaint. That was fault and caused Mr X frustration and time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
43. TfL recognised the injustice its complaint handling caused and said in April 2024 it would consider an appropriate remedy. I have not seen any evidence TfL has suggested an appropriate remedy for Mr X’s injustice in its complaint handling. I have made an appropriate recommendation below.
44. As the scrappage scheme is now closed I have not made a service improvement recommendation in this case.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within one month of this decision TfL will take the following action:
1. Complete the actions it has proposed to remedy Mr X’s injustice caused by its poor communication:
1. Write to Mr X at the email address of his registered account and apologise for the confusion caused by the lack of clarity in its letters;
2. ask for an explanation and information on the address discrepancies and outline the specific evidence it requires to prove sole trader status;
3. consider Mr X’s application in line with the scrappage scheme and provide a decision to Mr X; and
4. if it approves the application, consider if it should refund any of the ULEZ charges Mr X incurred during the period he was applying for the scheme.
2. Apologise to Mr X for the frustration and time and trouble caused to him by its poor complaint handling; and
3. Pay Mr X a symbolic amount of £250 to recognise the frustration, confusion and time and trouble caused to him by TfL’s faults.
46. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. TfL will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
47. TfL will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice and the organisation agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman