Summary: Dr X complained how the Authority handled his applications for the Ultra Low Emission Zone scrappage scheme. We find the Authority was at fault for how it handled Dr X’s applications and for its failure to correctly advise him about what documents were acceptable. The Authority has accepted our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Dr X complained how the Authority handled his applications for the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) scrappage scheme. He says the Authority failed to understand his special circumstances as a member of the armed forces and that his accommodation is provided for him.
2. Dr X says he had to scrap his car privately because of the Authority’s failures. This means he has lost out financially.

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. 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

5. I considered information from Dr X. I made written enquiries of the Authority and considered information it sent in response.
6. Dr 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

The ULEZ Scrappage scheme

7. The Authority has a scrappage scheme which provides grant payments to eligible London residents to scrap, donate or retrofit vehicles that to do not meet the ULEZ emissions standards.
8. Eligible applicants must live within one of the 32 London boroughs and be the registered keeper of the vehicle they applied with. The vehicle needs to have valid insurance, road tax and MOT.

The Armed Forces Covenant

9. The Armed Forces Covenant is a promise from the nation that those who serve or have served in the armed forces, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services.

What happened

10. Dr X contacted the Authority in late August 2023 with queries about the ULEZ scrappage scheme. He said he had a car that qualified, but he could not provide the evidence it needed. He asked whether he could scrap his car as he had moved to London in December 2022. He also said his insurance policy was running out, and therefore he wanted to know whether he could get short-term insurance to drive the car to the scrapyard. Finally, he said he is a member of the armed forces, and his temporary address is in London. He said his driving licence showed his long-term address which is not in London. The Authority responded and said Dr X had to live in one of the 32 London boroughs to be eligible for the scheme. It also said his car needed valid insurance.
11. Dr X applied for the ULEZ scrappage scheme in September. The Authority reviewed Dr X’s application and rejected it. It said his insurance was out of date, and he had not provided all the paperwork to show he was the registered keeper of his car.
12. Dr X sent the Authority another application and provided further paperwork showing he was the registered keeper of the car. He said he wanted to take out 24-hour insurance to drive his car to the scrapyard. He asked whether that was enough for it to approve his application. He also provided a letter from a housing management company to confirm he was living at a London address. The letter also said the management company paid for Dr X’s rent, council tax and utility bills. The Authority sent a letter to Dr X and said the proof of address he provided was invalid. It also said his insurance was out of date.
13. Dr X sent the Authority two emails and asked whether he could buy 24-hour car insurance. The Authority responded and said he should check its website for details of its scheme. Dr X sent a further email chasing a response. The Authority responded and said short-term insurance cover was acceptable providing it covered the date of his application.
14. Dr X sent a further application to the Authority in late October. He provided short-term insurance documents, and a copy of the letter he provided in his previous application from the housing management company. The Authority rejected Dr X’s application. It said his proof of address was invalid, and he could provide either a utility bill or bank statement. It also said he had not provided all the paperwork to show he was the registered keeper of his car.
15. Dr X sent a letter of complaint to the Authority two days later. He said no one was answering his questions, which was causing him frustration. He said he did not know what documents he could provide for proof of address, and he did not pay utility bills because the armed forces provided his accommodation. He also said he had wasted £50 paying for short-term insurance.
16. Dr X sent further emails to the Authority asking how he could provide proof of his address. The Authority sent a generic email and said he had to live in a London borough. Dr X sent a follow up email and said the Authority failed to answer his questions. He re-iterated he did not pay council tax or utility bills. The Authority responded and said he could provide a utility bill, bank statement, council tax letter or a valid driving licence. Dr X sent a further email asking the same question. The Authority did not respond. It noted on its system it had responded previously.
17. The Authority responded to Dr X’s complaint in February 2024. It said it had rejected his applications as his proof of address was invalid, his insurance had expired and/or he had not provided all the pages of his registered keeper’s document. It said it could reconsider his application if he could provide proof from the armed forces he lived at the address on his application.
18. Dr X responded to the Authority and said he had now sold his car for £300. He said he had provided evidence of his address, but it rejected it. He asked it to compensate him.
19. The Authority emailed Dr X and said it could no longer review his application and compensate him because he had scrapped his car.

Back to top

Analysis

20. The Authority is at fault for how it handled Dr X’s applications and his questions about the ULEZ scrappage scheme. He emailed it before he made his first application and said he would struggle to provide evidence because of his circumstances of being in the armed forces. He also asked about whether he could get short-term car insurance. The Authority’s response was generic and did not answer Dr X’s specific questions.
21. Dr X repeatedly tried to engage with the Authority after it rejected his applications and ask what documents he could provide as proof of his address. The Authority’s responses were unhelpful. It told Dr X he had to provide a utility bill or council tax letter, even though he made it clear he could not provide this. It also said he could provide a driving licence, when Dr X had previously explained his licence showed his long-term address which is not in London. It did not explain why the documents he had provided were unsatisfactory or give him any guidance on what else he could provide. This is fault. The Armed Forces Covenant is clear those who served in the armed forces should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. The Authority failed to show a due regard to the Covenant. Dr X also had to repeatedly ask the Authority whether short-term car insurance was acceptable.
22. The Authority took over three months to answer Dr X’s complaint. This is fault. It confirmed in its complaints response what documents he could provide as proof of his address. However, Dr X had already got rid of his car. The Authority has confirmed Dr X would have been eligible for the £2,000 grant if he had provided a letter from the armed forces confirming he lived at the address on his application.
23. When the Authority responded to my enquiries, it accepted it was at fault for its failure to provide Dr X with bespoke advice on what information he needed to provide to confirm his address. It said it was reasonable to expect Dr X to have completed the complaints procedure before getting rid of his car. However, it accepts Dr X made every attempt to engage with it. It said if Dr X can provide evidence he received £300 for his car, it will issue a further payment of £1,700 to him.
24. I welcome the Authority has recognised its faults and proposed a remedy to resolve this complaint. Its faults have caused Dr X frustration, and he was put to the inconvenience of repeatedly chasing for answers to his questions. It is more likely than not Dr X would have provided the required proof of address document if the Authority provided him with clarity on what he needed much sooner. Dr X repeatedly tried to engage with the Authority, and so I do not consider it was unreasonable that he got rid of his car. Therefore, I endorse the Authority’s proposed remedy of £1,700 (after Dr X has provided satisfactory evidence of receiving £300 for his car). I also recommend an apology, a further payment to Dr X for his frustration and inconvenience and a service improvement to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. By 6 November 2024 the Authority has agreed to:

• Apologise to Dr X for the injustice caused by the fault in this statement.
• Pay Dr X £150 for his frustration and inconvenience.
• Pay Dr X £1,700 (after Dr X has provided satisfactory evidence he received £300 for his car).
• Issue written reminders to staff who deal with ULEZ scrappage scheme applications to ensure they are aware they must provide bespoke advice to applicants who cannot provide the standard documents to support their applications.

26. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. There was fault by the Authority, which caused Dr X an injustice. The Authority has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman