Summary: The Council was at fault for how it dealt with Mr B’s application for a clean air zone exemption for his car. It did not apply its own criteria correctly. It has agreed to reconsider his application. It has also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr B and ensure its staff are fully trained.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council failed to properly assess his application for an exemption to its clean air zone (CAZ).

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 an injustice, 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 considered information from Mr B and the Council.
5. I considered information about CAZ exemptions on the Council’s website.
6. Mr B and the Council 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

7. The Council’s website says any resident who has a vehicle which does not comply with CAZ requirements can apply for an ‘exemption’ (which will allow them to use their vehicle in the CAZ). The Council will grant one exemption per resident. This excludes vehicles bought after 26 September 2022 (when the CAZ came into force).
8. Mr B moved into the Council’s area after September 2022, but has owned his car – which is not compliant with the CAZ requirements – since 2017.
9. When Mr B applied for an exemption for his car, the Council refused, saying he did not qualify because his car had been registered in the area after September 2022.
10. This decision was not consistent with the procedure on the Council’s website, which only refers to when a car was bought, not when it was registered. Applying the logic used in Mr B’s decision would mean nobody moving to the area would ever qualify for an exemption.
11. This was fault by the Council. It has offered to reconsider Mr B’s application, which is an appropriate remedy. It should also make a symbolic payment to Mr B to recognise his inconvenience.
12. The Council should also ensure its staff are fully trained on its CAZ exemption criteria.

Back to top

Agreed actions

13. Within six weeks, the Council has agreed to:
• Reconsider Mr B’s application using the correct CAZ exemption criteria (inviting him to submit relevant evidence if required).
• Make a payment of £100 to recognise Mr B’s inconvenience.
14. Within three months, the Council has agreed to ensure all staff who deal with CAZ exemption applications are properly trained on the exemption criteria.
15. The Council has agreed to provide us with evidence it has completed these actions.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Council was at fault for how it dealt with Mr B’s application for a CAZ exemption for his car.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman