Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a grant to upgrade a non-compliant vehicle in relation to the Clean Air Zone. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council will not give him a grant to upgrade a vehicle so it is compliant with the Clean Air Zone CAZ). Mr X says the Council only recommended he should not upgrade the vehicle until a grant had been approved.

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 the grant application and supporting evidence, the decision and information on the Council’s website. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Grants are available to help people upgrade a vehicle which is not compliant with the emission standard for the CAZ. To qualify the non-compliant vehicle, at the time of the application for a grant, must be in-use and have current tax, MOT and insurance. There is a warning on the Council’s website which says the Council does not award retrospective grants and applicants should wait for the Council to make a decision before making any purchasing decisions.
5. Mr X had an accident and decided not to repair a non-compliant vehicle. He bought a compliant vehicle.
6. Mr X applied for a grant for the non-compliant vehicle. He did not provide proof of tax, insurance or MOT. Checks carried out by the Council found the tax expired in June and there was no record the vehicle was insured. The Council refused the application because Mr X had not provided evidence the vehicle was in use. It also said it cannot award retrospective grants. The Council noted Mr X had told the Council, after he applied for a grant, that he had bought a new vehicle before making the application. The Council checked with DVLA and found the change to the log book strongly suggested Mr X had bought the compliant vehicle before applying for a grant.
7. Mr X appealed. He said he did not know grants are not available after purchasing a compliant vehicle. He asked for a grant due to financial hardship. Mr X did not say he had bought the new vehicle after he applied for the grant. The Council considered the appeal but did not change the decision.
8. Mr X says the Council should award a grant as the position would be the same if he had bought the new vehicle after applying. He says the Council only recommended he should not buy before he got the decision.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The website explains people should not buy a compliant vehicle before the Council has made the grant decision. In addition, Mr X did not meet the other requirements for a grant because he did not provide proof of tax, insurance or MOT.
10. The Council sent Mr X an acknowledgment of his application which explained what would happen next and, if approved, it would send a grant agreement in principle. It went on to recommend not buying a new vehicle until receiving the agreement in principle. This recommendation comes after the clear warnings at the start of the application process and reiterates the applicant should wait until they get a decision. In any case, when Mr X received the acknowledgement after he had already bought a new vehicle so the wording of this document did not affect the application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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