Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s decision not to make an award under the vehicle scrappage scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Authority’s decision to refuse his application for a grant under the vehicle scrappage scheme. Mr X says he presented a MOT and the vehicle is roadworthy. Mr X also complains of delay, inaccuracies and an ineffective review process. Mr X wants the Authority to review his application and pay compensation.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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 Authority. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Between October 2023 and January 2024 Mr X submitted four applications for a grant under the scrappage scheme. All were correctly refused but, in some cases, the Authority did not provide the correct reason for refusal. Mr X’s applications after December were for a wheelchair accessible vehicle.
5. On 5 June, in response to my enquiries, the Authority said it had reviewed the case and realised it should not have refused the application on the grounds of a broken window and lack of MOT. It said it would immediately accept the application, notify Mr X, and consider paying compensation. It immediately notified Mr X.
6. The next day the Authority reviewed the case and found some discrepancies. It suspended approval of the application and, on 6 June, asked Mr X to provide information and photographs. The Authority needed evidence the vehicle is wheelchair accessible. It said it would still consider awarding a grant, and paying compensation, if Mr X provided the evidence. On the same day it asked Mr X not to scrap the vehicle.
7. Mr X did not provide any more evidence other than to say he had scrapped the vehicle because the Authority had said it would approve the grant. I have not seen any evidence stating Mr X scrapped the vehicle or on what date.
8. After further consideration the Authority decided there are irregularities with the application and it passed it to its counter fraud and corruption team. It notified Mr X on 11 June and told him the application had been withdrawn and the case closed. The Authority explained why the previous applications had been refused and said it would not pay compensation.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. There was no delay but, instead, the Authority explained why it had refused the initial applications. There was an error with the latest application because the reason given for the refusal was wrong. This did not cause an injustice because the Authority reversed its decision and said it would consider paying compensation.
10. But, on further review, it found discrepancies and withdrew the application and passed the case to the fraud team. This is not an indication of fault as the rules say it may prosecute if someone makes a fraudulent application and a claim can be terminated if someone is in breach of the rules. This was a decision the Authority was entitled to make; it is not my role to intervene in the fraud process or assess whether Mr X is entitled to a grant.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman