Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a grant under the car and motorcycle scrappage scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Authority’s decision to reject his application for a grant under the car and motorcycle scrappage scheme. He says his vehicle is a car derived van and qualifies for a grant. Mr X wants the Authority to approve the application.

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 Authority. This includes the correspondence about the application and information about the scheme. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X applied for a grant under the car and motorcycle scrappage scheme. He sent a copy of the V5 which describes the vehicle as a light goods van and a car derived van.
5. The Authority rejected the application because the vehicle is not classified as a M1 car.
6. Mr X says the vehicle qualifies for a grant because it is a car derived van.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. The rules for the scrappage scheme say the vehicle must be classified as a M1 car; the DVLA lists M1 vehicles as cars. The DVLA recorded Mr X’s vehicle as a N1 vehicle; N1 vehicles are light goods vehicles. The DVLA also recorded Mr X’s vehicle as a car derived van but the scrappage scheme does not state that car derived vans qualify for a grant and it remains that the vehicle is classified as N1 rather than M1. The only exception is N1 vehicles that are adapted for wheelchair use. I have not seen anything to suggest Mr X’s vehicle has been adapted.
8. Mr X disagrees with the decision and thinks his vehicle should qualify because it is a car derived van and because he has health issues. However, we do not act as an appeal body and there is no reason to start an investigation because the decision reflects the policy. We could not ask the Authority to award a grant because that would be contrary to the policy and the policy does not include health issues as grounds for a grant.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman