Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant is ineligible for a Clean Air Zone exemption for his vehicle. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says he is appealing against the Council’s decision not to issue a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) exemption for his vehicle. He says his business is registered in Bradford and he pays business rates.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence relating to his exemption application. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for a CAZ exemption. He provided a copy of the V5 which shows the vehicle is registered to him at an address outside Bradford and that he lives outside Bradford. He also provided information from HMRC which again related to an address outside Bradford, as does his driving licence.
6. The Council refused the application on the basis Mr X had not provided evidence of a business within the Council area. Mr X replied saying he lives elsewhere but has a business in Bradford; he provided an address for the business. The Council responded by asking for proof Mr X pays business rates to Bradford. Mr X did not send evidence of business rates but sent a copy of a tenancy agreement showing he rents a property in Bradford for storage.
7. The Council reviewed its decision but decided Mr X had still not demonstrated he has a business in Bradford. It said the tenancy agreement only shows Mr X rents storage space and is not evidence he is running a business. It also said the vehicle is registered to Mr X and not to a business. The Council confirmed its decision not to award an exemption.
8. Mr X appealed to us. He says he has a business registered in the Council area and pays business rates to the Council.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Based on the evidence Mr X provided, the Council decided he does not qualify for an exemption. I have considered that evidence and, as it does not show he operates a business in Bradford, there is no suggestion of fault in the way the Council decided he does not qualify. Mr X says he pays business rates but he did not provide evidence of this as invited by the Council. If he had provided this evidence the Council would have taken it into account when reviewing the decision.
10. We are not an appeal body and do not review council decisions. I cannot overturn the Council’s decision or decide if Mr X is eligible for an exemption. I can only consider if the Council properly considered his application and I see no suggestion of fault in the way it made the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman