Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a grant under the Clean Air Programme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a grant so he could replace a non-compliant vehicle in relation to the Clean Air Zone (CAZ). Mr X says the Council told him he could sell the van and then apply. Mr X says he has suffered a financial loss and is eligible for the grant because he replaced his van. Mr X wants the Council to accept his application.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes information relating to his grant applications in 2022 and 2023, and the grant policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Grants are available to help people replace a vehicle which does not meet the emission standard for the CAZ. The policy says the applicant must own the vehicle when they apply for the grant.
5. Mr X applied for a grant in early 2022. The Council approved the application and issued an Agreement in Principle letter in July. The letter gave Mr X two months to provide proof of purchase of a compliant vehicle and proof he no longer owned the non-compliant van. The Council closed Mr X’s application in January 2023 because he had not provided all the required information.
6. Mr X sold the van in November 2023. He says the sale was delayed because the van needed repairs. Mr X then submitted another grant application. The Council rejected the application because he was not the owner of the van at the time of the second application.
7. Mr X disagrees with the Council and says he was told to sell the van and then apply.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X owned the van when he made the 2022 application. The Council closed that application because Mr X did not provide additional information; that information would have included proof he had sold the van. Mr X did not submit a new application until late 2023 and I have seen documents which show he was not the owner when he submitted the second application. The Council’s decision to refuse the application reflects the policy because Mr X was not the owner when he submitted the second application and the previous application was closed at the start of 2023. The decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. Mr X says he was told to sell the van and then apply. However, there is no evidence to support this allegation. The information on the website states the applicant must own the van at the time of the application and it is possible Mr X would have seen this when he applied in 2022. Mr X requested a review of the decision to reject the 2023 application and his reasons for a review did not include that he had been misadvised. The Council says there is nothing in the notes to suggest he was misadvised and it is unlikely an officer would have said this as it is not the policy. The Council has checked its phone records and, during 2023, Mr X did not call the CAZ team until after he had submitted the 2023 application. I acknowledge Mr X has a different perspective on what he was told but there is no evidence to back up this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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