Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the eligibility criteria for Transport for London’s vehicle scrappage schemes was unfair. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about Transport for London’s (TfL) scrappage scheme. Mr X says the scheme’s eligibility criteria was unfair and meant he was unable to replace his vehicle.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an Authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Authority operates “scrappage schemes” where applicants that meet certain eligibility criteria can apply for additional funding from the Authority when scrapping an eligible vehicle. The criteria include, but are not limited to, owning a qualifying vehicle that is used within the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
7. In 2021 the ULEZ was expanded to cover more areas in London. Mr X privately scrapped his vehicle because it was not compliant with the regulations of the ULEZ. Mr X says he did not qualify for the scrappage scheme at the time.
8. In August 2023, the Authority expanded the eligibility criteria for its scrappage scheme and removed the criterion that applicants must be in receipt of certain benefits to receive the grant.
9. Mr X complained to the Authority and said it was unfair the scheme had changed. He said he scrapped his vehicle and did not receive the grant and was financially disadvantaged as a result.
10. The Authority responded and told Mr X the original scheme targeted individuals who were most in need of support (including those on certain benefits), but later expanded to all Greater London residents. It said Mr X scrapped his vehicle in 2021, and because the Authority must receive proof that the scrapped vehicle is currently used inside the ULEZ, he would not be eligible under its current scheme.

Analysis

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Authority’s actions to warrant further investigation. The Authority explained Mr X does not have a vehicle that can be scrapped and therefore he cannot apply for the current scrappage scheme.
12. We will not investigate matters relating to the Authority’s scrappage scheme criteria that was in place in 2021 because it is more than 12 months since Mr X scrapped his vehicle. If Mr X was unhappy with the eligibility criteria at the time, I consider it would have been reasonable for him to have complained sooner. In addition, further investigation into this matter is unlikely to achieve a different outcome because it is for the Authority to determine the eligibility criteria for its scrappage schemes.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman