Summary: Ms A complained about the way Transport for London has dealt with her application under its scrappage scheme. She said Transport for London has repeatedly rejected her application with no good reason. We found Transport for London at fault for the way it handled Ms A’s application. It has agreed to make a symbolic payment in acknowledgement of the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms A complains Transport for London (TFL) has unreasonably rejected her application for its scrappage scheme. She says this has caused financial loss as TFL has not told her why her application has been rejected and the vehicle has now been off the road for a considerable time.
2. Ms A would like TFL to reconsider her application and the documents she has provided in support.

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 have considered information provided by Ms A and TFL, alongside the relevant law and guidance.
6. Ms A and TFL have had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision and all comments received have been considered before this final decision was made.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Ms A applied for TFL’s scrappage scheme in September 2023. TFL rejected this application the following week and explained this was for two reasons.
8. The response says it rejected the application because the address on the application did not match the business name on Companies House, and because the insurance evidence provided by Ms A did not conform the vehicle was insured for business use.
9. Ms A says she did not receive this response and complained to TFL in December 2023. TFL replied and reiterated the reasons it had rejected the application.
10. Ms A provided more information in late December 2023. The information included a definition of the Motor Trade Policy she had provided evidence of in September. She also provided a copy of a letter from DVLA to the Company at the address on her application.
11. In January 2024, Ms A contacted her local MP who wrote to TFL on her behalf as she did not understand why TFL continued to refuse her application.
12. In March 2024, TFL accepted the insurance evidence element had now been met, but again said Ms A had not met the proof of address requirement. In its response to the MP, TFL set out the specific documents which could be accepted as proof of operating address.
13. Ms A contacted a solicitor who wrote to TFL on her behalf, again making it clear that she did not understand the basis of TFL’s rejection. TFL responded but did not specify the documents which would satisfy its proof of address requirements.
14. Ms A wrote to TFL again in April 2024 and reiterated her belief that a letter from her insurer evidenced the operating address of the business. TFL responded and said she could refer the issue to the Ombudsman’s office.

Analysis and Findings

15. TFL’s policy states the operating address on an application under the scrappage scheme must match the Company name and registered address details on the Companies House website. Where this element is not met, a proof of address is needed.
16. The policy specifies that proof of address must be a utility bill, bank or credit card statement, a council tax letter or a business rates letter.
17. The address on Ms A’s application does not match the address on the Companies House website. Therefore, TFL’s rejection of the application is not fault.
18. TFL is entitled to reject the application where its requirements have not been met. Although Ms A said she had not received the first rejection email, I have seen a copy of this correspondence and am satisfied it was sent.
19. However, TFL was in communication with Ms A from September 2023 until March 2024 before clearly setting out what she needed to provide to satisfy its proof of address requirements.
20. It is clear from her correspondence that Ms A was doing what she could to meet this requirement. If TFL had clarified what it needed in its early rejection of the application, this may have saved Ms A several months of going back and forth. TFL did not put Ms A in a position to understand why her application was being rejected. Its failure to provide clear information here is fault.
21. Having said this, I can see Ms A did not provide the documents once TFL had clarified what it needed in March 2024. I cannot therefore say she would have done so if TFL had told her this sooner. On this basis, I do not agree that TFL has caused her the financial cost of keeping the vehicle since the application was rejected.
22. I have seen that Ms A has been put to time and trouble in providing information through different sources in her attempts to meet TFL’s criteria. In acknowledgement of this, I recommended that TFL provide her with a symbolic remedy.

Back to top

Agreed Action

23. Within one month of the decision, TFL will apologise to Ms A in accordance with our guidance on apologies and make a symbolic payment of £200 for her time and trouble.
24. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. We found Transport for London is at fault and recommended it apologise and provide a symbolic payment to Ms A.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman