Summary: Mr X complained about how the Authority handled his application to its Scrappage Scheme. We find the Authority at fault for rejecting Mr X’s application, causing injustice to Mr X. The Authority agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and reassess his application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Authority wrongly rejected his application in January 2024, based on eligibility criteria that was not in effect until March 2024.
2. Mr X says his application was declined, and he missed out on up to £10,000.

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 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 considered Mr X’s complaint, the Authority’s responses. I also discussed the complaint with Mr X.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies and Principles of Good Administrative Practice (a copy of both can be found on our website).
8. Mr X and the Authority 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

Background

9. In January 2023, the Authority launched a scrappage scheme available to London residents on a low income or certain benefits. The scheme allowed eligible individuals to scrap or retrofit non-compliant vehicles to prepare for the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). It included options for disabled people to scrap or retrofit wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs), and taxis could be scrapped if they hadn’t received prior funding through a separate scheme.
10. In August 2023, the scheme’s eligibility criteria changed, and applicants no longer needed to be in receipt of a benefit to apply.

What happened

11. In October 2023, Mr X’s taxi was delicensed by the Authority. As the vehicle was 12 years old, it was no longer eligible for licensing.
12. The next day, Mr X applied for the ULEZ Car and Motorcycle scrappage scheme. The Authority rejected his application because Mr X did not provide the correct proof of address.
13. A couple of days later, Mr X re-applied for the scheme. The Authority rejected his application because Mr X did not include the full vehicle log book.
14. The next day, Mr X re-applied for the scheme.
15. In January 2024, the Authority rejected his application citing a new rule introduced in August 2023. According to the rule, taxis could not have been licensed in the 12 months prior to the scheme’s start (i.e. after 1 February 2022). Since Mr X’s vehicle had been licensed as a taxi since February 2022, it was ineligible.
16. In March, Mr X complained to the Authority. He said information he had received through a Freedom of Information request showed that 32 taxis had been scrapped under the scrappage scheme, yet his application was rejected because his vehicle had been licenced since 1 February 2022.
17. Later in the month, the Authority updated the scheme’s terms and conditions to include the new requirement for taxis, backdating the change to August 2023.
18. In April, the Authority responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said the majority of the 32 taxis scrapped under the scheme were approved before the eligibility criteria changed in August 2023 or during a short grace period afterward. It also said it is aware, as the vehicles are wheelchair accessible, there are instances where the taxi was delicensed prior to February 2022 but continued to be used for personal use.
19. On the same day, Mr X replied, asking where the new taxi requirement was published as he could not find it online. He also asked how long the grace period was after the August 2023 change and whether his October 2023 application fell within that period.
20. In May, the Authority advised Mr X the new requirement had been introduced at short notice as an “internal business rule”, with the terms and conditions on the website updated later in March 2024. It apologised for any confusion and confirmed that no grace period had been in place after the eligibility criteria changes.
21. In response to my enquiries, the Authority provided evidence that, in February 2023, the company processing applications on its behalf was instructed to flag any applications from taxis for additional checks. The Authority’s staff were told by email they would then check whether these vehicles had received funding from the Taxi Delicensing Scheme, and if they had, those applications would be rejected. The Authority later provided additional evidence that, in August 2023, it sent an internal email with template wording for rejection letters to be used when rejecting applications based on the vehicle having been a licensed taxi within the 12 months prior to the scheme’s start.
22. The Authority has also referenced clause 7.1 of the terms and conditions, which it says allows it to make retrospective changes to the scheme. This clause states:

“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 (https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/car-and-motorcycle-scrappage-scheme)”

My findings

23. The Authority has accepted it did not handle Mr X’s applications correctly. It said when Mr X first applied in October 2023, his vehicle was ineligible because it had been licensed as a taxi after February 2022. The Authority failed to inform Mr X of this from the start, which led to him making two further applications, and a two-month delay in providing a final decision. This is fault and caused Mr X uncertainty.
24. The Authority said the eligibility criteria changed in August 2023; however, it did not update the website or the scheme’s terms and conditions until March 2024. A delay of seven months. This delay is fault and misled Mr X and other applicants to believe they were eligible for the scheme.
25. The Authority said it introduced an “internal business rule” reflecting the change at the time. To evidence this, it has provided an internal email sharing template wording for rejection letters but has failed to provide evidence of how, and when, the decision was made. The lack of documented decision making is poor administrative practice and is fault.
26. I acknowledge the Authority’s reference to clause 7.1, which gives it the right to amend the scheme’s terms and conditions. However, it has not acted in line with the clause. The clause states changes will be published on the website, but as per paragraph 24 it delayed doing this. This is fault. The clause is also broadly written, allowing the Authority to apply changes retrospectively at its sole discretion, which I find is contrary to our Principles of Good Administrative Practice. By not providing clear, consistent terms that applicants can reply on, this approach fails to keep to commitments, undermines transparency, and does not treat service users fairly or ensure fair decision making. Furthermore, it lacks accountability and provides insufficient clarity on eligibility criteria, which limits applicants’ ability to make informed decisions about their applications.
27. Considering the fault detailed above, I find, on balance, the Authority did not properly assess Mr X’s application. The Authority’s actions and omissions meant that Mr X was not given an application process that was fair, transparent, or well-communicated. This meant that Mr X was not given a fair and informed assessment of his eligibility for the scheme.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Authority has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; 
2. pay Mr X £100 in recognition of the distress, uncertainty and inconvenience caused by the mishandling of his applications; and
3. reassess Mr X’s final application strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions that were published at the time of his application, specifically the “Terms and conditions for Individuals and Sole traders (effective from 21 August 2023)”.
29. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Authority. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman