Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the scrappage scheme for a taxi because the Authority has agreed a fair remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Authority should not have refused his application to the scrappage scheme for his taxi. He says the reason for the refusal was not stated in the terms and conditions. Mr X also says the refusal caused financial hardship. Mr X wants the Authority to assess the application on the rules in force when he applied.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority. This includes the correspondence relating to the application. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Authority has a scrappage scheme which can provide a grant to some drivers who need to change their vehicle to comply with the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). Taxi drivers who are licensed with the Authority are exempt from the ULEZ charge.
5. Mr X’s taxi was licenced with the Authority until October 2023. He then applied for a grant under the scrappage scheme. He says he checked the rules and could not find anything to suggest he would not qualify for a grant.
6. The Authority refused the application. It said the rules state a taxi is only eligible for the scheme if the licence had been surrendered or expired in the twelve months before the start of the scheme in early 2023.
7. Mr X challenged the decision. The Authority repeated he does not qualify for a grant but it did not provide detailed reasons or explain the rules changed in August 2023. The Authority took about four months to respond to Mr X.
8. The Authority told me its decision to refuse the grant was correct, but it did not update the terms and conditions, to reflect the August 2023 policy, until after it had refused Mr X’s application. The Authority said it should have responded more quickly to Mr X’s challenge and provided more information about why he does not qualify for a grant.
9. The Authority will write to Mr X. It will provide more information about why he is not eligible for a grant. It will also address the way it responded to his correspondence. This does not mean the Authority will change the decision about the grant but the additional response should provide some clarity about the background and reasons for the decision.
10. We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to decide if Mr X is eligible for a grant; that is a decision for the Authority. But, I can see why Mr X has complained about the way the Authority handled the application. It did not properly explain why it refused the application and, at the time of the application, it had not updated the publicity materials to show the new rules. The Authority also delayed responding to Mr X.
11. I will not start an investigation because the Authority will write to Mr X to provide an explanation and to address the way it responded. This is a fair way settle the complaint and, while it will not lead to a grant, may provide Mr X with some reassurance about the validity of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because I am satisfied with the remedy agreed with the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman